MBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT 


i 

0 

| 

BEFORE  THE 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

MITTEE  ON-pBIGATION  OF  AEID  LANDS 
CHOUSE  e¥  REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SEVENTH  ^CONGRESS 


FOURTH  SESSION 
644  ON 

S.  3808 

A  BILL  AUTHORIZING  THE  SECRETARY  OF  THE  INTERIOR 

TO  INVESTIGATE  AND  REPORT  TO  CONGRESS  UPON 

THE  COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT 


DECEMBER  6,  7,  AND  13,  1922 


Or  CALIFORNIA 
LOS  ANGELES 

JUN26  1958 

LIBRARY 
GOVT.  PUBS.  ROOM 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT   PRINTING    OFFICE 
1»22 


COMMITTEE  ON  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS. 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

SIXTY-SEVENTH   CONGRESS,  FOURTH   SESSION. 

ADDISON  T.  SMITH,  Chairman,  Idaho. 

NICHOLAS  J.  SINNOTT,  Oregon.  CARL  HAYDEN,  Arizona. 

EDWARD  C.  LITTLE,  Kansas.  C.  B.  HUDSPETH,  Texas. 

JOHN  W.  SUMMERS,  Washington.  JOHN  E.  RAKER,  California. 

HENRY  E.  HARBOUR,  California.  HOMER  L.  LYON,  North  Carolina. 

E.  O.  LEATHERWOOD,  Utah.  WILLIAM  B.  BANKHE AD,  Alabama. 

WILLIAM  WILLIAMSON,  South  Dakota. 
SAMUEL  S.  ARENTZ,  Nevada. 
MANUEL  HERRICK,  Oklahoma, 
A.  R.  HUMPHREY,  Nebraska. 

II 


COLUMBIA  BASIN  IREIGATION  PBOJECT. 


COMMITTEE  ON  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  December  6,  1922. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Addison  T.  Smith  (chairman), 
presiding. 

There  were  present  before  the  committee:  Hon.  J.  Stanley  Webster,  a  Repre- 
sentative in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Washington;  Mr.  Francis  M.  Goodwin,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Interior;  Gen.  George  W.  Goethals,  consulting  engineer,  Columbia 
Basin  survey;  Mr.  J.  B.  Beadle,  assistant  to  the  Director  of  Reclamation;  Mr.  Ivan  E. 
Goodner,  chief  engineer,  Columbia  Basin  survey,  and  Mr.  Fred  A.  Adams,  supervisor, 
Columbia  Basin  survey,  State  of  Washington. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  Senate  bill  3808,  authorizing 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  investigate  and  report  to  Congress  upon  the  Columbia 
Basin  irrigation  project,  will  be  taken  up  for  consideration  this  morning.  We  have 
with  us  several  gentlemen  who  are  well  informed  in  regard  to  this  project,  among  whom 
is  General  Goethals  and  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Mr.  Goodwin. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  bill  and  the  Secretary's  report  be 
printed  in  the  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  was  just  going  to  say  that  the  bill  is  short  and  I  will  read  it,  and 
then  read  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  to  whom  the  bill  had  been  referred 
for  his  views.  The  bill  is  as  follows: 

[S.  3808,  Sixty-seventh  Congress,  second  session.) 

AN  ACT  Authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  investigate  and  report  to  Congress  upon  the  Columbia 
Basin  irrigation  project. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  of  America 
in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  is  authorized  and  directed  to 
investigate  and  report  as  early  as  possible,  and  not  later  than  the  1st  day  of  January, 
1924,  on  the  essential  features  of  the  proposed  Columbia  Basin  irrigation  project 
referred  to  in  the  act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Washington  entitled  "An  act 
providing  for  the  survey  of  the  Columbia  Basin  irrigation  project,  creating  a  commis- 
sion therefor,  denning  its  powers  and  duties,  and  making  an  appropriation,  and 
declaring  that  this  act  shall  take  effect  immediately,"  approved  March  1,  1919,  in  the 
following  particulars: 

Its  water  supply  and  the  permanency  and  sufficiency  thereof;  the  approximate 
watershed  from  which  said  water  supply  is  to  be  derived  and  what,  if  any,  natural 
reservoirs,  such  as  lakes,  are  available  for  the  storing  of  surplus  waters  for  the  irrigation 
of  the  land,  the  reclamation  of  which  is  contemplated  by  the  said  act,  and  any  other 
lands  capable  of  being  irrigated  by  the  waters  to  be  conserved  through  such  project  in 
the  said  State  of  Washington  or  any  other  State;  the  character  of  the  climate  as  it 
affects  the  agricultural  development  of  the  said  land;  the  transportation  facilities 
available  therefor;  the  prospects  and  means  of  settlement;  the  engineering  features  of 
the  proposed  project,  stating  point  of  diversion  of  the  water  to  be  used  in  the  said 
project  and  from  what  streams;  the  principal  dam  or  dams  which  may  be  needed 
therefor  and  the  general  location,  nature,  length,  and  character  of  such  aqueducts  or 
canals  as  may  be  necessary  for  conveying  the  water  to  the  lands  to  be  irrigated  thereby; 
the  cost  and  feasibility  from  an  engineering  and  physical  standpoint  of  such  work  as 
may  be  required  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  the  said  project,  both  in  the  aggregate 
and  the  ultimate  cost  per  acre  to  the  land  to  be  benefited  thereby;  and  the  views  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  as  to  the  general  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  com- 
pletion of  the  said  project  in  the  way  of  markets  for  manufactured  products,  of 
increased  agricultural  production,  of  opportunities  for  home  building,  and  the  effect 
of  the  same,  both  upon  the  communities  immediately  affected  and  upon  the  Nation  at 
large,  and  such  other  matters  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  said  Secretary  may  be  of 
importance  and  pertinent  to  the  proposed  development. 


2  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PJROJECT. 

SEC.  2.  That  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  there  is  hereby 
authorized  an  appropriation,  from  any  money  in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appro- 
priated, of  the  sum  of  $100,000,  to  be  expended  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  in  making  such  investigation,  studies,  and  report. 

The  bill  was  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  by  the  chairman  o>f  the  com- 
mittee on  the  22d  of  November,  and  I  have  his  reply  as  follows: 

NOVEMBER  28,.  1922; 

MY  DEAR  MR.  SMITH.  Replying  to  your  letter  of  November  22,  I  heartily  approve 
of  the  legislation  proposed  in  S.  3808,  authorizing  investigation  of  the  Columbia 
Basin  irrigation  project.  The  State  of  Washington  has  expended  $150,000  in  an  inves- 
tigation of  this  project  under  an  enactment  that  contemplates  later  reference  to  the 
United  States. 

The  benefits  and  values  that  would  be  created  by  the  irrigation  of  this  large  tract 
demand  a  determination  of  the  feasibility  of  the  project  by  the  United  States,  and 
for  this  reason  a  substantial  sum  is  necessary. 

In  addition  to  the  assimilation  of  data  obtained  by  the  State  of  Washington,  there 
yet  remain  a  number  of  matters  requiring  further  investigation  and  consideration  to 
enable  me  to  prepare  report  contemplated  by  S.  3808.     The  amount  named  is  neces- 
sary for  this  purpose  and  I  hope  the  measure  will  become  law. 
Respectfully, 

ALBERT  B.  FALL,  Secretary^ 
Hon.  ADDISON  T.  SMITH, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands, 

House  of  Representatives. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Judge  Webster,  do  you  wish  to  make  any  statement? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Has  there  ever  been  any  other  hearing  on  this  subject? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  not  before  this  committee.  The  bill  was  before  the  Senate 
committee  and  hearings  were  held  on  July  10  last,  printed  copies  of  which  are  avail- 
able. There  is  also  before  the  committee  the  report  of  George  W.  Goethals  &  Co.  on  the 
project,  and  also  report  of  the  Columbia  Survey  Commission  of  the  State  of  Washington. 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  J.  STANLEY  WEBSTER,  A  BE  PRESENT  ATI  VE 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE   STATE  OF  WASHINGTON. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  answering  your  question,  I  should  like  to>  make  a 
very  brief  statement  in  connection  with'this  bill.  % 

As  the  Members  already  will  observe,  the  bill  merely  authorizes  an  appropriation; 
it  does  not  make  a  direct  appropriation.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  enlarge  upon 
the  rules  regulating  the  powers  of  the  legislating  committees  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives or  the  powers  of  the  Committee  on  Appropriations.  You  will  readily  see 
that  we  would  have  no  standing  before  the  Appropriations  Committee  in  any  effort 
to  secure  this  appropriation  without  in  advance  having  secured  an  authorization,  this 
being  a  new  project. 

We  also  realize  that  we  have  the  laboring  oar  in  convincing  the  Appropriations 
Committee  in  the  first  instance,  and  the  Congress  ultimately,  that  this  appropriation 
is  justified,  but  in  order  to  have  any  standing  before  that  committee  in  that  under- 
taking it  is  necessary  to  have  this  authorization  bill  passed. 

We  do  not  intend  to  call  a  great  array  of  witnesses  before  your  committee;  rather 
we  expect  to  have  a  small  array  of  great  witnesses.  We  have  Assistant  Secretary 
Goodwin,  of  the  Interior  Department,  who  will  represent  Secretary  Fall,  and  who  is 
quite  familiar  with  this  project.  He  was  designated  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  go  over  the  project  and  get  such  facts  and  data  as  were  necessary  to  enable  the  Secre- 
,  °  .  .1  T  ,r  •  *  .  D,  •  .  .«•  n  ^i :-j j-Li of  this 


bill,  and  he  is  peculiarly  in  a  position  to  give  the  committee  essential  information. 

We  also  have  General  Goethals,  who  was  employed  by  the  State  of  Washington  to  go 
over  the  project  and  make  a  personal  inspection  and  survey  of  it.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  me  to  pause  to  speak  further  of  this  than  to  say  that  General  Goethals  is  present  and 
will  testify  at  length  in  the  premises. 

We  also  have  Mr.  I.E.  Goodner,  the  State  irrigation  engineer  of  the  State  of  Wash- 
ington, who  is  an  expert  in  irrigation  engineering  matters,  as  well  as  in  the  general  as- 
pects of  irrigation,  and  who  can  give  the  committee  detailed  data  and  the  benefit  of  his 
personal  connection  with  the  project  from  its  very  inception. 

We  also  have  Mr.  Fred  A.  Adams,  who  is  the  supervisor  of  the  Columbia  Basin  proj- 
ect under  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Washington.  He  will  be  in  a  position  to  give  the  com- 
mittee any  general  information  concerning  the  measure  that  the  committee  may  de- 


COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  3 

I  should  like,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  make  the  suggestion,  to  say  that  we  would 
prefer  to  have  Mr.  Goodwin  called  first,  then  have  General  Goethals,  then  Mr.  Goodner,. 
and  finally  Mr.  Adams. 

We  endeavored  to  secure  the  presence  here  to-day  of  Director  Davis  of  the  Recla- 
mation Service.  He  was  in  the  West  at  the  time  but  contemplated  returning  to  the 
Capital  on  the  4th  of  this  month.  Later  his  plans  necessarily  were  altered  and  he  will 
not  be  able  to  return  until  Sunday  of  next  week.  If  the  committee  desires  his  pres- 
ence we  can  arrange  to  have  him  come  at  a  day  which  will  be  suitable  to  your  conven- 
ience. 

WTien  the  bill  was  under  consideration  in  the  Senate,  Director  Davis  appeared  and 
testified,  and  his  testimony  is  reported  at  length  in  the  printed  hearing  of  the  Senate 
committee. 

Mr.  Beadle,  the  assistant  to  the  director,  is  present  to  represent  him  and  can  per- 
haps give  the  committee  assistance  if  you  care  to  have  it  from  that  source. 

I  think  at  this  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  not  take  further  time  of  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  now  hear  Mr.  Goodwin,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 

STATEMENT  OF  HON.  FRANCIS  M.   GOODWIN,   ASSISTANT   SECRE- 
TARY OF  THE  INTERIOR. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  want  first  to  express  the  regret  of 
the  Secretary  that  he  could  not  be  present  in  person  to  explain  his  reasons  for  indorsing 
the  passage  of  this  particular  measure,  but  he  is  tied  up  over  in  the  Appropriations 
Committee  on  something  else  which  he  considers  of  great  importance  at  the  present 
time. 

I  might  also  say,  however,  that  the  Secretary  asked  me  to  come  over  and  represent 
the  department,  and  to  speak  for  him  as  well  as  myself  in  this  matter.  I  believe  it 
would  he  fitting  and  proper  as  a  general  introduction  to  this  proposition  to  say  that 
the  Columbia  Basin  is  simply  a  part  and  a  parcel  of  a  general  reclamation  program  in 
which  the  Interior  Department  is  interested. 

As  you  are  aware,  the  Interior  Department  has  approved  the  passage  of  other 
measures. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  What  do  you  mean  by  the  "passage  of  other  measures' '? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  will  refer  to  that  in  just  a  mimite.  Of  course,  the  Interior  Depart- 
ment has  been  heartily  in  favor  of  the  continuation  of  the  present  reclamation  policy, 
which  will  probably  bring  into  reclamation  a  million  or  more  acres  ultimately. 

\Ve  have  also.  I  believe,  indorsed  the  Smith-McXary  bill,  a  general  reclamation 
policy  for  smaller  projects. 

We  have,  also,  as  I  recall,  indorsed  or  made  a  favorable  report — perhaps  that  would 
be  a  better  statement — with  reference  to  the  Colorado  Basin,  another  project  which 
will  perhaps  bring  into  irrigation  ultimately,  if  it  is  carried  out,  a  couple  of  million 
acres  of  land. 

Then  finally  the  Secretary  has  indorsed  the  Columbia  Basin  project,  another  project 
which  will,  if  adopted  and  successfully  carried  out,  bring  into  reclamation  probably 
more  than  2,000,000  acres  of  land.  This  is  part  of  a  general  policy.  There  is  no  con- 
flict between  these  propositions  in, any  sense  whatever. 

I  might  state  generally  that  I  think  the  reason  back  of  this  can  be  very  readily 
seen.  It  is  apparent  that  during  the  past  few  years  that  there  has  not  been  much 
additional  acreage  placed  under  cultivation  in  the  United  States.  It  has  been  esti- 
mated that  the  increase  in  population — that  is,  the  normal  rate  birth  over  the  normal 
death  rate,  exclusive  of  any  immigration,  for  the  United  States,  is  1^  per  cent.  On 
that  basis  in  the  next  20  years  we  will  have  an  increase  in  population  in  the 
United  States  of  somewhere  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  millions.  In  order  to  care  for 
those  twenty-five  or  thirty  millions,  on  the  basis  of  the  past  experience  and  on  the 
basis  of  past  production,  it  would  be  probably  necessary  to  put  under  cultivation 
a  very  large  acreage,  estimated  as  high  as  6,000,000  acres  per  year.  You  may  cut 
that  6,000,000  acres  in  two  on  account  of  the  fact  that  a  portion  of  the  present  acreage 
not  now  cultivated  will  be  cultivated  in  the  future,  and  intensive  cultivation  may  cut 
it  down  still  more.  Reduce  your  acreage  to  the  minimum  of  a  million  acres  per  year, 
and  in  the  next  20  or  25  years  it  will  require  a  tremendous  acreage  of  twenty  to 
twenty-five  millions  to  produce  the  food  supply  for  the  normal  increase  in  the  popu- 
lation of  the  United  States. 

In  addition  to  that.  I  might  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Secretary  Hoover  recently 
in  a  speech  before  a  convention  at  Boston  made  the  statement  that  the  United  States 
is  going  to  be  called  on  for  many  years  to  come  to  provide  a  very  large  food  supply  for 
Europe.  In  fact,  he  estimated  that  60  per  cent,  I  believe  the  figures  were,  of  the  total 
exports  of  the  United  States  for  some  years  would  probably  be  food  supplies.  This 


4  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

statement  is  borne  out  to  some  extent  by  the  recent  publication  by  the  Department 
of  Commerce  of  the  statistics  for  the  year  ending  June  30  last,  wherein  it  appears  that 
notwithstanding  a  depreciation  in  the  value  of  these  commodities  of  exported  some- 
thing like  $600,000.000  the  quantity  for  that  fiscal  year  was  greater  than  the  preceding 
fiscal  year.  It  is  Mr.  Hoover's  estimate  that  until  Russia  is  again  put  on  her  feet, 
which  will  be  a  slow  process,  even  under  favorable  conditions,  there  will  be  a  heavy 
demand  upon  the  United  States  for  food  supplies.  So  that  the  basis  of  this  reclama- 
tion proposition  is  the  demand  and  the  necessity  for  increasing  the  area  of  agricultural 
lands  under  cultivation  in  the  United  States,  and  it  must  come  out  of  our  abandoned 
farms,  our  logged-off  lands,  our  swamp  lands,  or  our  semi-arid  desert  land  in  the  Far 
West. 

I  believe  the 'agricultural  interests  are  beginning  to  appreciate  this  themselves.  I 
noticed  a  little  memorandum  here  on  the  table  with  reference  to  a  resolution  passed 
at  a  recent  national  convention  of  a  farmers'  organization  in  the  United  States, 
unanimously  recommending  the  passage  of  the  Columbia  Basin  bill,  which  is  now 
before  you  for  consideration,  on  that  very  ground. 

So  at  the  present  time  there  is  need  of  a  vision  of  the  future  agricultural  needs  of 
the  United  States,  just  as  20  years  ago  when  you  started  the  reclamation  policy,  which 
has  resulted  in  something  like  2,000,000  acres  being  actually  placed  under  irrigation 
under  Federal  project.  There  is  need  now  for  a  bigger  program  and  a  wider  vision, 
and  the  basis  of  it  is  the  demand  for  additional  agricultural  lands,  and,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  Department,  the  most  feasible  place  at  the  present 
time  to  begin  work  on  this  program  is  to  continue  the  use  and  the  maximum  use  of 
the  organization  that  has  already  been  built  up  by  Congress,  the  Reclamation  Service, 
for  the  purpose  of  reclaiming  all  possible  semiarid  lands  in  the  West.  The  Columbia 
River  Basin  is  one  of  those  projects. 

Last  summer  I  had  the  privilege  of  going  over  this  project.  I  spent  a  month  exam- 
ining into  a  good  many  details.  I  went  over  this  tremendous  watershed  that  is  shown 
over  here  in  Montana  and  Idaho  [indicating  on  map],  running  up  into  British  Colum- 
bia. I  went  down  the  old  route  that  was  followed  by  the  Lewis  and  Clark  Exposition, 
down  to  Spokane,  down  on  to  the  land,  over  it;  I  went  up  on  a  high  bluff  at  one  end 
of  this  project  where  I  could  get  a  bird's-eye  view  of  it,  and  then  went  on  to  the  coast, 
and  the  more  I  saw  of  the  project  the  more  the  report  prepared  by  the  State  of  Washing- 
ton appealed  to  me.  I  just  want  to  refer  very  briefly  to  some  of  the  general  features 
of  it,  leaving  all  the  details  for  the  engineers,  who  are  much  more  competent  to  speak 
on  such  features  of  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Out  of  what  funds  were  your  expenses  paid  on  this  examination? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Out  of  the  contingent  fund. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  the  $100,000  appropriation? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  In  the  Interior  bill? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  for  investigation  of  secondary  projects? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  think  that  is  the  purpose  of  it.  Mr.  Beadle  can  tell  you  about 
that. 

Mr.  BEADLE.  I  think  it  was  the  contingent  fund  for  the  Department  of  the  Interior, 
not  for  reclamation.  You  refer  to  the  reclamation  fund? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes;  I  am  referring  to  the  annual  appropriation  that  we  make  for 
examination. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  No;  it  did  not  come  out  of  that. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  was  not  out  of  the  reclamation  fund? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  No. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question,  Mr.  Goodwin:  Why  could  not  the 
Department  of  the  Interior,  through  the  Reclamation  Sen-ice,  make  all  these  exami- 
nations, if  the  contingent  or  the  secondary  appropriation  was  large  enough? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Well,  they  could,  if  it  was  large  enough,  but  at  the  present  time  every 
available  dollar  is  doing  duty;  in  fact,  the  money  is  insufficient. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know,  but  "what  I  mean  is  this:  The  committee  could  make  that  a 
million  dollars  as  well  as  $100,000.  • 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Undoubtedly  they  could. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  then  if  the  Reclamation  Service  desired  to  make  an  investigation 
of  a  project  of  this  kind,  it  would  be  authorized  under  the  law  to  do  so. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  There  is  no  question  but  what  that  could  be  done  if  it  was  broad 
enough.  The  situation  as  I  see  it  is  simply  this:  That  this  is  a  project — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  What  do  you  mean  by  "broad  enough?"  I  would  like 
to  know  the  distinction  between  a  large  project  and  a  small  one.  Now.  just  what  is 
the  difference? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  5 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  This  is  the  distinction  that  the  Secretary  had  in  mind,  and  the  reason 
this  bill  was  proposed:  That  the  entire  irrigated  area  for  20  years'  reclamation  service 
is  less  than  this  one  single  project.  If  this  project  is  taken  up  by  the  United  States  it 
would  involve  an  advancement  of  some  sort  of  a  good  many  million  dollars,  running 
uplperhaps  to  $250,000,000  ultimately  before  the  project  could  be  fully  developed. 
It  is  a  project  of  such  magnitude  in  one  single  item  involving  as  much  as  that  of  20 
years'  actual  work,  that  it  ought  to  be  taken  up  separately  and  submitted  to  the 
committees  of  the  Congress  and  have  the  approval  of  the  Congress  to  this  extent  before 
anything  should  be  done  in  the  way  of  expenditure  of  money,  especially  in  view  that 
if  it  is  not  followed  up  it  would  mean  a  loss  of  those  particular  funds. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  the  viewpoint  of  the  department  that  these  appropriations  should 
be  added  to  and  a  thorough  investigation  made,  that  eventually  this  shall  become  a 
Government  reclamation  project? 

Mr.  GOODWIX.  That  is  the  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  funds  reimbursable? 

Mr.  GOODWIX.  Reimbursable  funds.     That  is  the  proposition. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  is  the  size  of  this  contingent  fund  you  referred  to? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  do  not  recall  that,  Mr.  Sinnott. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  was  your  expense  account? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Something  like  $150  or  $160,  outside  of  transportation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  would  we  be  able  to  get  you  out  in  other  parts  of  the  West  to  make 
investigations? 

Mr.  GOODWIX.  Well,  you  might  influence  the  Secretary  to  send  me  put  there.  I 
am  not  averse,  once  in  a  while,  to  making  investigations,  particularly  in  California. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  sounds  all  right. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Especially  in  the  winter  season.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GOODWIX.  I  just  want  to  call  attention  to  a  few  of  the  general  features  that  I 
met  up  with.  You  will  notice  in  looking  at  this  map  that  there  are  four  transcon- 
tinental lines  already  traversing  this  area.  In  addition  I  found  roads  or  highways 
already  built:  I  found  conditions  ready  for  actual  settlement,  matters  which  under 
the  ordinary  irrigation  project 

Mr.  HUDSPETH  (interposing).  You  say  transcontinental  railroads? 
T  Mr.  GOODWIX.  Yes;  the  Northern  Pacific,  the  Great  Northern,  the  Milwaukee, 
and  the  Union  Pacific.    Then  you  will  notice  they  are  traversed  north  and  south,  as 
well  as  east  and  west,  by  railroads. 

Then  there  was  no  question  in  my  mind  about  the  climatic  conditions  or  about  the 
soil.  You  will  notice  right  to  the  west  is  the  Yakima  project  with  which  you  are  all 
very  familiar,  a  project  of  100,000  acres  approximately. 

The  soil  on  this  particular  project,  according  to  the  analysis,  is  of  the  same  general 
nature  as  the  Yakima  soil,  and  within  this  project  there  are  a  number  of  small  irri- 
gated tracts,  principally  by  pumping,  which  show  that  the  soil  will  produce  very 
abundantly. 

Then  a  little  to  the  northwest  is  the  famous  Wenatchee  district,  closely  bordering 
on  the  northwest  edge  of  the  Big  Bend  territory. 

Then  down  below  is  the  Sunnyside  district,  running  down  to  Wapato.  Part  of 
this  is  within  the  Indian  reservation.  So  the  territory  around  it  has  been  tested  by 
actual  production  of  a  variety  of  crops. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  pink  section  there,  which  is  practicall>  a  reproduction  of  the 
map  of  Texas,  is  the  land  to  be  irrigated,  is  that  right? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  That  is  the  large  body  of  land.  Then  right  here,  north  of  Spokane, 
is  another  small  body  of  approximately  60,000  acres.  The  area,  of  course,  is  not 
near  so  large  as  the  State  of  Texas.  The  entire  area  is  about  3,000.000  acres. 

So  that,  as  far  as  one  can  judge  by  general  conditions,  the  transportation,  the  soil, 
and  the  climate,  and  the  production  of  a  variety  of  crops  is  absolutely  an  assured 
fact. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Is  that  larger  than  this  map?     This,  I  see,  gives  the  figures  1,750.000. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  That  is  the  proposed  irrigable  land  under  the  gravity  system.  That 
is  embraced  within  the  3.000.000  acres. 

On  the  smaller  map,  marked  in  blue,  is  the  1,753,000  acres. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  these  are  tracts  that  are  not  irrigable  [indicating]? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Those  yellow  tracts  are  the  ones  that  they  have  not  taken  into 
consideration  at  all. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  entire  area  is  3,000.000  acres,  but  the  irrigable  area  is  1,753,000 


Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes;  by  the  gravity  system.     I  will  refer  to  that  in  just  a  minute. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  These  colors  represent  the  land  that  can  be  irrigated  by  pumping? 


6  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  GOODWIX.  The  pink;  yes.  The  green  over  there — I  suppose  that  is  green— I 
may  be  color  blind— is  the  ]. 753,000.  the  pink  is  some  three  hundred  odd  thousand 
which  can  be  irrigated  by  pumping  out  of  the  ditches  or  reservoirs  of  the  gravity 
system,  and  the  yellow  embraces  land  not  considered  because  not  as  high  class  as 
the  pink  and  green,  some  of  which,  however,  is  susceptible  of  irrigation  and  can  be 
used  for  grazing  and  other  purposes. 

In  fact,  in  my  opinion,  one  reason  for  asking  for  this  appropriation  is  to  ascertain  if 
there  can  not  be  added  a  very  large  area  to  the  State's  estimate,  which  is  very  con- 
servative. In  making  its  estimate  the  State  included  only  lands  estimated  to  bear  a 
total  cost,  of  at  least  $200  per  acre  to  place  under  reclamation  and  dispose  of  to  settlers. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Is  this  all  Government  land? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  No;  my  recollection  is  that  about  5  per  cent  of  it  is  public  land,  about 
5  per  cent  of  it  X.  P..  about  4  per  cent  belongs  to  the  State. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  What  do  you  mean  by  "N.  P."? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Northern  Pacific  Railroad.  And  the  rest  is  in  private  ownership. 
About  half  of  the  privately  owned  land  1  think  is  in  small  tracts  and  the  other  half 
averages  a  little  over  a  section. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Let  me  get  that  again.  How  many  acres  will  you  irrigate  by  pumping? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  1,753,000  acres,  according  to  the  State's  estimate,  by  gravity  without 
pumping.  Then  there  are  several  hundred  thousand  acres  additional  by  pumping 
from  the  ditches  under  the  gravity  system.  Then  there  is  an  additional  acreage  out 
side,  of  not  as  high  class  land,  some  of  which  will  come  under  gravity  and  some  under 
pumping. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  suppose  someone  here  can  give  us  exact  figures? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  think  Mr.  Goodner  can  give  you  those  exact  figures 

So  to  my  mind,  as  far  as  general  facts  as  to  this  irrigation  project  are  concerned,  the 
situation  is  most  favorable.  It  is  a  favorable  situation  from  the  tested  viewpoints 
established  by  the  reclamation  policy  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  do  the  elevations  compare  with  the  elevations  at  Sunnyside? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  The  elevations  run  a  little  lower  at  some  points  than  at  Sunnyside. 
they  run  from  about  2,000  down  to  500  feet  at  Pasco. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  Sunnyside? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  do  not  know.     Mr.  Goodner,  do  you  know? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  ranges  from  600  up  to  1,000. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Sunnyside  does? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  are  the  maximum  elevations  in  the  Columbia  Basin? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  The  elevation  for  the  irrigable  land  runs  under  2,000  down  to  500. 
Mr.  Goodner  can  give  you  those  exact  figures. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  rainfall  there? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  About  7  inches,  I  think,  on  an  average. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  vou  not  mean  there  at  Walla  Walla  it  is  only  about  500  above  sea 
level? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  It  is  about  500  at  Pasco.  That  is  down  on  the  Columbia  River. 
Another  proposition  that  I  was  quite  interested  in,  and  of  course  we  are  all,  is  the 
water  supply  and  the  problems  that  grow  out  of  that.  You  will  notice  a  number  of 
large  lakes  here  [indicating  on  map]. 

Now,  the  proposal  of  the  State  is  to  store  water  in  Flathead  Lake  in  Montana  and 
in  the  Pend  Oreille  Lake  in  Idaho.  There  is  also  a  proposition  to  store  water  in 
Priest  Lake  in  Idaho,  which  is  also  tributary  to  the  Pend  Oreille  River,  but  this  vv  as 
not  considered  by  the  State  and  is  one  of  the  matters  requiring  further  consideration 
and  investigation,  for  this  reason:  There  is  a  tremendous  amount  of  water  power 
which  can  be  developed  from  these  streams.  The  development  of  this  project  will 
create  a  demand  for  power  development  as  well.  It  is  estimated,  I  believe,  that 
there  is  something  over  2,000,000  horsepower  possible  of  development  in  connection 
with  these  waters.  That  is  theoretical  horsepower.  I  do  not  known  what  it  actually 
will  be.  The  question  of  storage  would  ha\e  something  to  do  with  power  develop- 
ment, as  it  would  provide  a  larger  water  supply  at  the  low-water  season  for  that  pur- 
pose, the  low-water  season  coming  after  the  irrigation  season  has  closed,  along  in 
December  and  January.  There  is  a  possibility  of  this  working  out  in  harmony  for 
the  mutual  benefit  of  both.  There  would  be  ample  storage  in  the  two  lakes,  Flathead 
and  Pend  Oreille,  according  to  the  figures  prepared  by  the  State,  something  like 
2,500,000  acre  feet,  coupled  with  the  normal  flow  to  provide  abundant  water,  not 
only  for  lands  in  the  Columbia  Basin  in  Washington  but  for  any  that  may  be  irrigate 
in  Montana  or  elsewhere.  In  Montana  I  found  in  the  \icinity  of  Kalispel  that 
there  is  in  the  neighborhood  of  150,000  to  300,000  acres,  according  to  the  State  en- 
gineer—his estimates  varied— that  can  be  probably  placed  under  irrigation. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  7 

Montana  proposes  storage  on  some  of  the  tributaries  to  the  Flathead  Lake  to  care 
for  this  acreage.  I  believe  an  investigation  of  this  proposal  is  contemplated  under 
the  provisions  of  this  particular  bill  and  is  one  matter  that  should  be  further  investi- 
gated so  as  to  provide  the  maximum  use  of  these  waters,  not  only  for  this  particular 
proposition  but  for  any  other  irrigation  proposition  anywhere  in  the  vicinity  of  these 
waters. 

Then, -in  that  connection  is  the  question  of  power  development,  about  which  I  have 
spoken.  Since  I  made  my  trip  the  Federal  Power  Board  has  made  a  report  upon 
the  use  of  the  waters  of  the  Columbia  River.  The  said  board  concedes  that  irrigation 
has  first  place  over  power,  and  the  reason  for  that  is  very  apparent:  This  water  has 
run  to  waste  for  years  and  years  and  will  continue  to  do  so  for  years  yet  to  come 
so  far  as  power  is  concerned  unless  there  is  a  market  for  it.  The  only  real  project 
that  would  develop  a  market  for  the  consumption  of  this  power  is  the  Columbia  Basin 
proposition.  It  would  provide  not  only  a  market  for  local  consumption  of  power, 
but  the  additional  traffic  with  all  parts  of  the  United  States  would  create  further  der 
mands  for  power  for  transportation. 

You  are  perhaps  aware  that  the  Yakima  country  alone,  a  year  ago,  I  think  it  was, 
developed  something  like  17,000  carloads  of  freight,  carrying  the  products  to  every 
part  of  the  United  States  and  bringing  products  and  manufactured  articles  from  every 
part  of  the  United  States  to  that  section.  The  Yakima  project  is  many  times  smaller 
than  the  proposition  known  as  the  Columbia  Basin,  and  the  latter  would  mean  a 
tremendous  volume  of  freight  arid  a  tremendous  volume  of  business  to  every  portion 
of  the  United  States.  To  carry  that  freight  will  create  a  market  for  power.  The 
Milwaukee,  as  you  know,  is  now  electrified,  and  the  other  railroads  will  probably  be 
electrified.  The  Columbia  Basin  project  will  thus  develop  a  market  for  power  and 
help  to  develop  that  resource  as  well  as  irrigation  of  arid  lands.  I  believe  the  in- 
vestigation of  power  is  contemplated  by  this  measure  in  order  that  the  irrigation 
proposition  may  get  the  benefit  of  any  such  possible  power  development  which  might 
properly  be  associated  therewith,  taking  into  consideration,  of  course,  the  vested 
rights  that  have  already  accrued  along  these  waters. 

So  that  as  far  as  the  water  proposition  is  concerned,  based  on  statistics  gathered  by 
the  Government  as  to  rainfall  and  stream  flow,  covering,  1  believe,  from  19  to  30  years, 
the  facts  are  ample  to  justify  the  statement  that  there  is  ample  water  for  the  needs  of 
everybody.  The  State's  computations,  I  may  add,  were  based  on  the  use  of  water 
in  the  Yakima  Valley,  where  the  same  character  of  land  is  found. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  heavy  blue  line  there?  Is  that  intended  to  be  the  ex- 
terior boundary  of  the  water  shed? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes;  that  is  the  exterior  boundary  of  the  water  shed. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  only  runs  around  to  the  upper  portion. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  There  is  a  little  part  of  it  that  runs  up  into  Canada;  the  rest  of  it  is 
in  Montana  and  Idaho,  and  a  little  portion  of  it  over  in  Washington,  in  the  Kaniksu 
Forest  Reserve. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  none  of  the  territory  west  of  that  line  is  included? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  No. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Nor  north? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Nor  north. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  contemplate  providing  in  this  investigation  an  investigation 
of  the  flow  of  water  in  and  about  the  Flathead  Lake  and  within  this  watershed  terri- 
tory, as  to  water  for  irrigation  and  for  electric  development,  and  still  supply  the 
Columbia  Basin  tract  of  land? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes,  there  is  ample  water  for  all  those  purposes  and  to  permit  the 
normal  flow  to  continue  down  the  Columbia  into  this  little  bend  of  the  river  on  our 
Canadian  frontier  [indicating  on  map];  so  that  Canada  will  still  have  the  normal  flow 
of  water  at  the  low-water  season. 

The  Columbia  River  proposition  as  it  stands — this  is  a  matter  you  are  familiar 
with — has  a  flow  greater  than  that  of  the  diversion  dam  at  Yuma  on  the  Colorado 
according  to  the  figures  in  the  Federal  power  report. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  outlet  of  the  Flathead  Lake? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  The  Flathead  River,  flowing  down  this  way  [indicating]. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Where  does  that  flow  to? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Into  Clarks  Fork,  into  the  Pend  Oreille  Lake,  out  of  the  Pend 
Oreille  Lake  into  what  is  known  as  the  Pend  Oreille  River  and  then  into  the  Columbia. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Pend  Oreille— what  is  the  outlet  of  that? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  The  Pend  Oreille  River.  Here  is  Clarks  Fork  running  into  Lake 
Pend  Oreille  [indicating]  and  then  the  Pend  Oreille  River  running  into  the 
Columbia  and  on  down  to  Portland. 


8  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  you  do  not  take  any  water  at  all  west  of  the  Pend  Oreille  Lake, 
do  you.  except  at  the  diversion  point  here? 

Mr.  GOODWIX.  Under  the  gravity  system  the  proposed  diversion  point  is  right 
here  [indicating]. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  what  point,  now? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  That  is  at  Albany  Falls,  right  across  the  Idaho  line. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  all  that  territory  west  is  not  used  as  a  water  shed  at  all  for  this 
system? 

'  Mr.  GOODWIN.  No;  the  flow  into  the  Columbia  River  that  would  be  used  all  comes 
east  of  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  reason  there  is  none  of  that  water  used  west  of  there? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Because  it  flows  into  the  Columbia  River  beyond  the  point  of 
diversion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  There  is  no  chance  to  take  it  up  again? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  No;  the  only  chance  of  taking  that  up  is  the  proposition  of  building 
a  dam  in  the  Grand  Coulee  and  lifting  the  water  some  500  feet  or  more,  and  then 
carrying  it  to  the  land  from  that  point. 

The  State  has  adopted  the  gravity  proposition  for  the  reason  that  it  brings  in  more 
acreage;  that  there  are  no  unusual  engineering  propositions  that  have  not  been  solved 
in  other  reclamation  propositions;  that  the  cost  of  maintenance  is  lower  and  there 
is  less  liability  of  a  breakdown.  As  to  the  pumping  proposition,  however,  there  is 
still  some  question  and  that  is  one  of  the  maters  that  will  have  to  be  settled  by  the 
report  contemplated  by  this  bill,  so  there  will  be  no  dissatisfaction  as  to  the  selection 
of  gravity  as  against  the  proposed  pumping  proposition. 

Mr.  RAKER.  After  you  get  all  this  surveying  done  and  estimated,  what  arrange- 
ments have  you  now  or  what  steps  have  you  taken — that  is,  the  State  of  Washington 
and  these  people  interested — so  as  to  know  when  you  get  through  that  they  will  have  a 
water  right  as  against  any  subsequent  development  in  Montana  and  in  Idaho? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  All  these  waters  have  been  reserved  for  this  purpose. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  all  flow  into  the  Columbia  River? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  They  all  flow  into  the  Columbia  River,  yes,  sir;  a  navigable  stream. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  do  you  mean  they  have  been  reserved? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  The  Federal  Power  Commission  has  covered  that  matter  fully  in  its 
report,  and  this  report  concedes  that  over  and  above  all  the  vested  rights  that  may 


Mr.  RAKER.  You  do  not  quite  get  me.  That  may  all  be  true,  but  somebody  will 
come  in  later,  private  individuals  and  otherwise,  and  what  effort  has  the  Government 
made  or  Government  officials  or  the  State  of  Washington  to  get  a  prior  right  to  dispose 
of  this  water? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  do  not  think  the  State  has  made  any  appropriations  of  water, 
because  there  is  no  method  by  which  that  could  be  done. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  they  could  make  application. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Nothing  has  been  done — nothing  that  I  know.  This  water  is  simply 
available  and  will  be  disposed  of  by  the  Federal  Government  if  this  proposition  is 
carried  out.  There  may  have  been  some  appropriation  made,  but  none  that  I  know  of. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  quite  get  you  as  to  how  the  Federal  Government  can  dispose 
of  the  water  claims  in  Montana  and  Idaho. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  You  mean  under  the  State  laws? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  There  are  no  appropriations  in  conflict  at  the  present  time,  and  there 
could  be  no  appropriations  made  under  either  the  Idaho  or  the  Montana  or  the  Wash- 
ington State  laws  which  could  be  carried  into  effect,  because  there  would  be  no  bene- 
ficial use.  The  projects  are  too  large  for  any  private  individual  or  private  organization 
to  undertake. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Don't  those  States  generally  give  preference  to  the  use  of  water  for 
irrigation  purposes  over  power? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Secretary,  this  project  was  formerly  known  as  the  Big  Bend 
project  10  or  15  years  ago? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  That  was  just  a  portion  of  this  particular  project;  the  land  is  now 
embraced  in  this,  and  the  data  covering  that  is  included  in  the  State's  investigation. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Where  is  the  Horse  Heaven  project? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  That  is  down  in  here  some  place  [indicating  on  map]. 

So  much  for  the  water  and  power  end  of  it,  unless  there  are  some  other  questions. 

Now  I  want  to  refer  to  another  proposition  which  I  have  already  indicated,  and  that 
is  the  question  of  cost.  The  question  of  additional  acreage  also  requires  further  inves- 
tigation, as  I  have  stated.  In  connection  with  that,  I  may  say  that  State  engineers 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  9 

have  made  a  survey  of  the  Columbia  Basin  project  at  a  cost  of  $150,000,  including 
explorations  for  the  dam  site  proposed  at  Grand  Coulee,  and  the  running  out  of  levels. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Where  is  that  darn  site? 

Air.  GOODWIN.  That  dam  site  will  be  right  in  here  in  the  Grand  Coulee  [indicating]. 
That  is  for  the  pumping  project.  This  is  the  gravity  project. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  At  Newport? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes,  at  Newport,  or  right  beyond.  In  making  its  surveys,  the 
State  ran  out  the  levels  and  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  question  about  the  amount 
of  land  of  a  highly  desirable  character  coming  under  the  project.  Under  the  State's 
plan  and  estimates  water  will  be  carried  to  every  40  acre  tract,  something  which  has 
not  been  done  under  all  the  Federal  reclamation  projects.  So  that  it  is  very  diffi- 
cult under  the  present  figures  to  compare  the  estimated  cost  with  Federal  projects, 
One  of  the  things  to  be  done  if  this  bill  is  passed  and  the  money  is  made  available,  is 
the  assimilation  of  all  the  data  prepared  by  the  State,  so  as  to  compare  it  and  make  a 
proper  analysis  for  the  consideration  of  Congress  as  to  the  cost  per  acre  and  obtain  any 
data  "necessary  to  fill  any  gaps  that  may  exist  in  the  State's  data  to  comply  with  the 
Federal  standards. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Roughly  speaking,  what  has  been  the  estimate  as  to  the  entire  cost  of 
this  project,  including  dam  and  canal,  without  the  smaller  laterals? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  think  General  Goethals's  estimate  was  $145  an  acre  for  the  1 ,753,000 
acres,  which  would  be  something  like  $250.000.000. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  includes  the  lateral  system,  carrying  the  water  onto  the  lands  in 
every  instance . 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  State  has  appropriated  about  $150,000 — the  State  of  Washington? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  money  has  been  used? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  That  has  been  expended  in  making  these  surveys  and  investigations. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  State  going  to  do  to  meet  the  proposed  authorization  of 
S100.000  by  the  Federal  Government? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  The  State  made  their  appropriation,  as  I  understand  it,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  making  the  preliminary  investigations,  obtaining  all  this  data  to  submit  to  the 
Federal  Government,  then  leaving  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  the  Federal  Government. 
So  far  as  I  am  advised,  they  do  not  propose  to  duplicate  this  in  any  way  for  the  purpose 
of  completing  the  investigation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  will  not  meet  them  fifty-fifty? 

Mr.  GOOODWIN.  No;  I  think  they  consider  they  have  already  expended  their  "fifty" 
on  it  by  the  $150.000. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  have  they  done  that  would  be  available  for  the  Government 
engineers? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  They  have  made  a  complete  survey  and  have  obtained  all  the  data 
as  to  the  water  supply.  That  is  available.  They  have  run  out  all  the  levels  for  this 
entire  area  in  detail  for  every  tract  of  land.  That  is  available.  They  have  run  out 
the  proposed  lines  of  diversion,  not  only  for  the  main  canals,  but  some  of  the  smaller 
canals;  they  have  partly  investigated  secondary  storage  and  have  a  large  mass  of 
other  data  available. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  going  to  be  the  size  of  the  farm  unit? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  imagine  in  the  neighborhood  of  40  acres. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  the  Reclamation  Service  now  providing  for  the  delivery  of  water 
to  edch  unit? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  They  are  at  the  present  time,  but  they  have  not  in  the  past,  and  it 
is  hard  to  compare  figures  on  that  basis.  In  addition  the  State  has  explored  the 
dam  sites  by  borings— they  have  all  the  available  data  for  that.  They  have  all  the 
data  as  to  the  climate,  the  rainfall,  the  production,  and  things  of  that  sort,  all  of  which 
is  available. 

So  that  at  the  present  time,  in  nay  opinion,  what  remains  to  be  done  in  the  way 
of  investigation  includes  the  lands  in  Montana,  the  possible  storage  in  Priest  Lake 

Mr.  SINNOTT  (interposing).  You  mean  the  land  in  Montana  for  irrigation? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  For  irrigation,  outside  of  this  area.  The  possible  storage  at  Priest 
Lake:  the  amount  of  this  particular  area  here  right  north  of  Spokane,  which  is  not 
included  in  that  1.753,000  acres:  the  question  of  secondary  storage  within  the  project 
itself,  which  has  not  been  completed,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  water  at  flood  season 
for  storage  on  the  land,  so  as  to  enable  a  reduction  to  be  made  in  the  size  of  the  main 
canals,  thus  reducing  the  cost  of  the  project. 

Mr.  HCDSPETH.  At  what  depth  did  you  secure  water  by  boring? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  They  bored  right  down  by  the  Columbia  River  for  the  purpose  of 
exploring  the  dam  site  there,  not  for  the  purpose  of  securing  water. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Not  for  pumping  purposes? 


10  COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Xo.  they  had  to  put  in  a  dam  some  200  feet  high  and  then  lift  water 
some  400  feet  into  a  lake,  an  artificial  lake,  and  carry  it  from  there  to  the  land  under 
the  pumping  proposition.  In  addition,  some  investigation  and  report  is  required  on 
the  proposed  settlement  proposition. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  State  has  also  examined  the  soil  in  every  section  of  land  in  the 
project. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes.  they  have  included  every  section  of  land  and  have  complete 
data  and  reports  covering  that  proposition. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  They  have  a  soil  survey. 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  So  it  is  to  assimilate  that  data,  to  fill  in  the  gaps,  that  the  Secretary 
has  asked  this  appropriation  be  made,  so  that  complete  data  will  be  available  for  a 
report  to  the  Congress  in  due  course  with  such  recommendations  as  are  proper  in  the 
premises  for  future  legislation. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  any  of  that  land  in  cultivation  now.  the  area  in  pink? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Down  in  this  country  [indicating]  a  part  of  this  land  has  been 
cultivated  at  different  times  by  dry  farming,  but  as  I  drove  over  it  I  came  to  one 
after  another,  almost  a  continuous  stream  of  abandoned  farms  that  had  been  failures. 
From  a  high  point  near  Corfu  I  could  see  a  large  area  of  this  land,  and  it  looked  like 
a  checkerboard  where  the  land  had  been  cleared  of  sagebrush  but  since  abandoned. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  640-acre  land? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  These  lands  were  mostly  entered  under  the  old  homestead  law,  160 
acres,  and  some  desert  land,  320. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  If  it  were  not  taken  up,  would  it  be  land  susceptible  of  640  entry, 
in  the  absence  of  the  irrigation  possibilities? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes.  Of  course  there  is  only  5 per  cent,  as  I  say,  of  the  total  area 
still  public  land,  and  very  few  tracts  of  that  size  within  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  it.  sagebrush  land? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Sagebrush  land. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Any  bunch  grass  on  it? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  Yes;  the  bunch  grass  grows  very  luxuriantly  in  places. 

Xow,  I  think  I  have  covered  the  subject.  It  there  are  any  further  questions.  I 
will  be  glad  to  answer  them  if  I  can;  otherwise  I  think  these  other  gentlemen  can 
give  you  details  much  more  readily  than  I  can. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General  Goethals  will  now  address  the  committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  GEN.  GEORGE  W.  GOETHALS.  CONSULTING  ENGI- 
NEER, COLUMBIA  BASIN  SURVEY. 

General  GOETHALS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  was  employed  by  the  State  of 
Washington  to  make  an  investigation  of  the  Columbia  Basin  project  to  determine  its 
feasibility  and  cost — feasibility  so  far  as  the  engineering  structures  are  concerned . 

I  went  over  the  area,  though  I  had  been  over  it  before,  and  checked  up  all  the  data 
that  had  been  obtained  by  the  State  and  all  the  drawings  that  had  been  prepared  for 
the  various  structures.  It  is  the  most  complete  mass  of  information  that  I  have  ever 
seen  collected  by  anybody  for  any  project. 

The  soil  has  been  carefully  examined  by  experts;  the  entire  area  has  been  cruised 
by  experts;  all  sections  or  portions  of  land  on  which  there  was  rock  which  would  have 
to  be  removed  in  order  to  make  it  suitable  for  cultivation  was  excluded  in  deter- 
mining the  area  that  should  be  put  under  cultivation.  Portions  of  those  lands  are 
indicated  on  that  right-hand  map  by  the  yellow  color.  A  number  of  acres  of  land  with 
the  stone  removed  would  become  just  as  valuable  land  for  farming  purposes  as  that 
colored  in  blue  or  green. 

They  have  excluded  from  the  area  which  will  be  irrigated  all  portions  of  the  territory 
for  which  pumping  is  required,  and  they  have  based  their  project  on  the  gravity 
system  of  irrigating  the  lands,  deriving  the  water  from  the  Pend  Oreille  and  Flathead 
Lake  by  storage.  They  have  figures  out  the  size  of  the  canal,  lined  them  all  with 
concrete  throughout,  so  that  the  structure  as  far  as  the  canals  are  concerned  is  perma- 
nent. 

They  have  crossed  the  river  where  necessary  by  siphons,  and  they  have  figured  out 
the  level  that  will  be  required  for  that  purpose. 

They  have  designed  the  structures  where  some  conduits  will  carry  across  the  Spokane 
River* 

The  only  part  of  the  project  from  an  engineering  standpoint  that  is  lacking  is  com- 
plete data  as  to  the  character  of  the  territory  through  which  some  of  the  tunnels  are  to 
be  put  in  crossing  the  mountain  ranges. 

We  checked  up  their  costs,  we  checked  up  their  rainfalls;  we  checked  up  every- 
thing, all  the  data  that  the  State  had,  and  we  came  to  the  conclusion,  on  account  of  the 


COLUMBIA  BASEST   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  11 

character  of  soil  and  the  climate  and  in  comparison  with  the  Yakima  and  the  Wenat- 
chee  that  it  was  a  worthy  project  for  completion. 

The  project  is  so  big  that  the  State  could  not  finance  it;  private  bankers  would  not 
undertake  it,  and  I  place  it  in  the  same  class  with  the  Panama  Canal  and  the  Alaska 
Railroad.  In  each  of  those  cases  the  Government,  after  investigation,  determined  that 
it  was  a  project  worthy  for  the  Government  to  undertake,  and  authorized  its  construc- 
tion. 

Those  are,  in  general,  my  remarks  on  the  subject,  though  I  am  ready  to  be  examined 
as  to  the  details  if  you  desire  to  do  so. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  As  to  the  storage  in  Flathead  and  Pend  Oreille  Lakes,  will  there  be 
any  interference  with  local  interests  by  raising  the  level  of  the  lakes,  and  will  there  be 
objection  to  that  in  other  places? 

General  GOETHALS.  There  has  been  no  objection  raised  here,  and  the  estimate 
contemplates  the  purchase  of  all  lands  that  will  be  overflowed  by  the  raising  of  the 
lakes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  The  diversion  is  of  what  character?    That  is,  is  it  a  dam? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  is  a  dam;  yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Is  the  dam  very  high? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  do  not  remember  the  height  of  the  dam.  It  is  a  natural  dam 
there,  a  canyon. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  will  raise  the  average  water  14  feet. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  A  comparatively  simple  structure  then? 

Mr.  GOETHALS.  Yes:  the  foundation  is  good. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  What  is  the  size  of  the  main  canal? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  do  not  remember  that.  That  is  all  given  in  the  data.  I 
have  not  checked  up  on  that. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  There  would  be  a  large  main  canal,  which  would  practically  be  a 
river? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  would  practically  be  a  river;  yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Does  the  main  canal  pass  through  a  very  rough  country? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  you  have  got  to  tunnel  and  you  have  got  to  build  siphons 
in  order  to  get  to  the  land. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Those  are  inverted  siphons? 

General  GOETHALS.  Inverted  siphons;  yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  imagine  then  that  the  construction  of  the  main  canal  from  Newport 
to  the  land  to  be  irrigated  would  be  one  of  the  very  large  items  of  cost? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  now  we  considered  the  question  of  a  partial  develop- 
ment. The  State  had  discussed  that,  but  if  a  project  of  this  kind  is  warranted  at  all, 
it  is  warranted  to  the  full  extent.  The  ultimate  cost  will  be  less,  and  while  some  of 
the  tunnels — while  one  tunnel  might  be  constructed  and  the  other  could  be  made 
later  on,  we  advocated  the  construction  of  the  entire  project,  and  the  money  should 
be  made  available  for  that  purpose  so  that  the  work  could  be  economically  carried 
forward.  You  get  very  little  results  until  after  you  have  brought  the  water  to  your 
area  here  [indicating]. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Now  the  success  of  the  Wenatchee  and  the  Yakima  projects  primarily 
has  been  by  reason  of  the  great  apple-growing  industry.  You  could  not  expect  to 
grow  apples  on  1,750,000  acres  of  land. 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  diversified  farming  is  what  you  want  on  1,750,000  acres  of 
land,  and  what  you  want  on  the  Wenatchee  and  Yakima  is  diversified  farming  for 
the  success  of  the  farmers. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Is  the  growing  season  between  frosts  longer  on  the  proposed  project? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  is  longer  on  the  Columbia  River  Basin  than  it  is  at  Yakima 
or  \Venatchee. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  visited  the  Flathead  Indian  project  in  Montana  two  years  ago, 
and  being  familiar  with  irrigation  in  the  Southwest  I  noticed  that  the  land  was  as 
fine,  that  the  structures  were  permanent,  and  it  was  apparently  an  excellent  irriga- 
tion system,  but  it  seemed  to  me  that  since  the  growing  season  was  so  short  it 
affected  the  feasibility  of  the  project. 

General  GOETHALS.  But  that  would  not  affect  this  at  all 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Because  of  the  lower  elevation? 

General  GOETHALS.  Because  of  the  lower  elevation;  yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  see  the  M.  and  O.  charges  are  given  here — operation  and  mainte- 
nance— at  48  cents  per  acre  per  annum. 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  that  is  the  gravity  project.  We  examined  into  the 
pumping  project  also,  and  as  between  the  two  we  favored  the  gravity  project. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  that  is  very  cheap,  is  it  not,  in  comparison  with  most  of  the 
Government  reclamation  projects? 


12  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  you  have  got  your  concrete  lined  canals,  very  heavily 
reinforced  concrete  canals — too  heavy,  I  think — I  accepted  their  concrete  dimensions; 
you  have  got  steel  structures  for  your  inverts;  you  have  got  everything  of  a  permanent 
character. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  know  the  general  average  of  the  Government  project  for 
operation  and  maintenance? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  do  not  know  of  any  Government  project  that  has  been  con- 
structed which  has  been  constructed  on  the  basis  on  which  this  is  planned. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  your  general  average,  Mr.  Beadle;  much  higher  than  that,  is 
it  not? 

Mr.  BEADLE.  It  is  between  $1  and  $2,  I  suppose,  per  acre  of  irrigable  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Under  gravity,  but  when  it  comes  to  pumping  it  runs  up  sometimes 
to  $3  an  acre. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Does  this  include  the  pumping,  48  cents  per  acre,  or  just  gravity? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  there  is  no  pumping  in  that.    That  is  all  gravity. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  On  the  Salt  River  project  in  Arizona  we  have  profited  very  materially 
by  the  fact  that  there  has  been  a  surplus  of  power  for  sale  which  created  a  revenue  for 
the  project  which  has  materially  reduced  the  assessments  necessary  to  levy  on  the 
water  users.  Is  there  any  possibility  of  developing  power  in  connection  with  this 
project  which  would  aid  in  paying  off  the  cost  of  its  construction? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  in  the  gravity  project,  but  not  to  such  an  extent  in  the 
pumping  project.  The  pumping  project,  which  contemplates  the  construction  of  a 
dam  across  the  Columbia  River  just  at  the  Grand  Coulee,  and  then  pumping  the 
water  into  the  lake  here  [indicating  on  map],  would  give  a  large  excess  of  power  which 
they  contemplate  would  reduce  the  cost  ultimately  to  the  farmers,  but  that  requires  a 
pumping  plant  which  is  novel  and  new,  the  cost  of  maintenance  and  operation  will 
be  greater  and  the  chances  of  breakdowns  greater  and  make  the  whole  thing  more 
complex.  I  favored  the  other,  both  as  to  the  number  of  acres  that  could  be  irrigated 
and  the  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  many  second-feet  will  it  require  to  irrigate  this  project,  both  by 
gravity  and  by  pumping? 

General  GOETHALS.  How  much  is  it,  Mr.  Goodner? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  diversion  at  the  maximum  season  is  20,000  cubic  feet  per 
second.  That  covers  1,750,000  acres. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  the  other,  the  pumping? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  With  the  300,000  which  can  be  pumped  upon  you  will  build  that 
up  by  about  5,000  second-feet  more. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  will  be  about  25,000  second-feet  all  told. 

Mr,  GOODNER.  Provided  there  is  no  development  of  secondary  storage.  That  is 
something  I  should  like  to  take  up  in  detail  when  my  turn  comes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  paid  more  attention  to  the  engineering  feasibility,  I 
assume,  General,  than  you  have  to  the  economic  feasibility? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  sir;  I  satisfied  myself  that  it  was  warranted  at  the  cost  per 
acre— $145— provided  the  land  could  be  secured  at  $5  to  $15  an  acre,  which  they  assured 
me  was  a  fact. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  This  $145  per  acre  does  not  include  the  first  cost  of  the  land? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  that  will  be  from  $5  to  $15  per  acre. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Does  it  include  the  removing  of  the  stones  from  that  portion  you 
mentioned  a  short  time  ago? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  that  is  entirely  excluded  from  consideration  in  this  project. 
All  that  land  which  would  require  removal  of  stone  is  excluded  from  the  1,750,000 
acres. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  are  the  stones,  gravel  or  lava  flow? 

General  GOETHALS.  There  is  some  lava,  some  bowlders,  and  some  gravel. 

Mr.  HAYDEW  .  I  notice,  General,  that  the  bill  provides  that  the  report  shall  be  made 
not  later  than  the  1st  of  January,  1924.  This  bill  was  originally  introduced  in  the 
Senate  perhaps  a  year  ago.  Do  you  think  that  all  the  information  required  to  be 
assembled  could  be  properly  gathered  together  and  submitted  to  Congress  in  so  brief 
a  time  as  one  year? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  because  of  the  data  they  have  got  already  available  in  the 
States. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  There  will  be  no  extended  investigation  in  the  field  which  would 
take  considerable  time? 

General  GOETHALS.  No.  The  questions  that  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
brought  up  are  the  questions  that  will  have  to  be  determined,  the  question  of  the 
use  of  the  Pend  Oreille  and  Flathead  Lakes  and  the  water  supply,  which  I  did  not 
touch  upon  but  I  assume  that  there  will  be  no  trouble  about  that. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  13 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  general  average  of  the  private  holdings,  the  area? 

General  GOKTHALS.  That  I  do  not  know.     I  can  not  tell  you  that. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  General,  I  wish  you  would  go  a  little  more  into  detail  as  to  the 
feasibility  or  otherwise  of  the  proposed  dam  and  pumping  project. 

General  GOETHALS.  The  dam  project  across  the  Columbia  River  necessitates  the 
construction  of  a  dam  high  enough  to  give  adequate  water  over  the  entire  area.  That 
dam  there  [indicating]. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  point  is  that? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  is  just  below  the  Coulee,  on  the  Columbia  River. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  is  at  the  head  of  what  is  called  Grand  Coulee. 

General  GOETHALS.  The  water  there  is  pumped  into  a  lake  that  will  be  created  by 
the  Grand  Coulee,  and  from  there  it  will  flow  by  gravity  over  a  portion  of  this  area. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  high  is  the  lift  there? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  is  six  hundred  and  some-odd  feet.  By  additional  pumping 
they  can  get  an  additional  area  of  land  under  water. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  far  is  that  from  Wilber?     Is  that  north  of  Wilber — Grand  Coulee? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  20  miles  due  north  of  Wilber. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  see  it  here  on  the  map. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Would  it  be  possible  to  build  a  dam  high  enough  in  the  Columbia 
River  to  back  the  water  up  and  avoid  a  large  amount  of  pumping? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  How  high  would  the  dam  be  in  the  Columbia  River  to  generate  power 
for  pumping? 

General  GOETHALS.  Dam  No.  3  provides  an  effective  head  of  211  feet.  No  dam 
greater  than  this  has  been  considered,  as  it  would  back  water  above  Kettle  Falls, 
besides  causing  more  extensive  overflow.  Kettle  Falls  is  already  under  Government 
ownership. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Would  silt  be  a  problem  in  any  part  of  this  proposed  project? 

General  GOETHALS.  In  the  pumping  project? 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Either  in  the  pumping  project  or  in  the  gravity  project. 

General  GOETHALS.  In  the  gravity  project  there  would  not  be  so  much  silt;  no.  1 
do  not  think  that  is  an  obstacle  there.  I  do  not  think  that  it  would  count  much  in  the 
Columbia  River  pumping  project,  either. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  General,  before  they  take  your  attention  to  something  else  I  still 
wish  you  would  go  a  little  more  into  detail  in  regard  to  the  dam  and  the  pumping 
projects. 

General  GOETHALS.  I  am  looking  for  that  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  this  dam  is  north  of  Wilber  on  the  Columbia  River,  is  it? 

General,  GOETHALS.  Yes;  on  the  Columbia  River.  It  dams  the  Columbia  River, 
and  there  are  three  propositions.  Here  are  Kettle  Falls  [indicating].  Dam  No.  1 
provides  an  effective  head  of  123  feet  and  contemplates  the  use  of  hydroelectric  units. 
This  dam,  without  other  storage  delivered  at  the  dam  from  above  in  amounts  that  can 
be  accurately  calculated  and  depended  upon,  would  give  a  shortage  of  power,  even 
for  pumping  purposes,  for  10  of  the  months  of  the  9-year  record  of  river  flow  available 
for  our  study,  so  that  is  knocked  out. 

Dam  No.  2  means  an  additional  height  of  dam,  providing  an  effective  head  of  175 
feet,  which  is  the  minimum  head  capable  of  operating  the  direct  connected  two-stage 
pumping  units  contemplated  over  the  irrigation  season. 

Dam  No.  3  provides  an  effective  head  of  211  feet,  which  comprises  a  hydroelectric 
installation.  No  dam  of  greater  height  has  been  considered,  as  such  would  back 
water  above  the  lower  pool  at  Kettle  Falls,  aside  from  causing  more  extensive  over- 
flow damages. 

The  dams  discussed  lie  within  feasible  limits  of  consideration.  Dams  of  less  than 
211  feet  effective  head  would  scale  in  cost  within  the  limits  set  up  for  the  three  types 
under  comment.  The  comparison  furnished  by  these  three  is  therefore  regarded  as 
sufficiently  comprehensive  for  present  purposes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  General,  you  spoke  of  a  lift  of  400  feet.    Where  is  that? 

General  GOETHALS.  The  pumping  plant  for  the  211-foot  dam  is  unprecedented, 
consisting  of  17  units,  each  with  a  capacity  of  1,000  second-feet,  against  a  head  of 
407  feet. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  consider  it  economically  feasible  to  lift  water  that  high? 

General  GOETHALS.  Well,  they  have  got  plans  for  it.    It  is  an  untried  proposition. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Just  in  that  connection,  I  happened  to  investigate  the  matter  and 
I  saw  a  letter  from  Cramp  &  Son  saying  that  they  could  furnish  pumps  to  lift  water 
over  600  feet,  and  they  claimed  it  was  economically  feasible  to  do  that. 

General  GOETHALS.  Furniehing  how  much  water? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Oh,  enough  water  to  irrigate  83,000  acres. 


14  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

General  GOETHALS.  These  pumps  are  specially  designed  for  this  purpose  by  the 
Allis-Chalmers  Co. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Does  that  mean  that  there  are  a  series  of  pumps  to  boost  the  water, 
one  after  the  other,  or  do  they  expect  to  do  the  pumping  all  in  one  operation? 

General  GOETHALS.  All  intone  operation.  In  order  to  get  the  necessary  amount  of 
water  it  will  require  176  of  these  pumps. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Is  it  estimated  that  the  life  of  such  large  pumps  would  be  long- 
that  is,  would  the  depreciation  be  about  the  same  as  on  an  ordinary  pump? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  do  not  know.  The  pumps  would  have  to  be  built  for  the 
purpose.  Assuming  that  they  worked  satisfactorily  from  the  start,  they  would  prob- 
ably last  the  same  length  of  time  as  any  other  pump. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Would  these  pumps  be  operated  bv  electricity  or  the  water  power 
itself? 

General  GOETHALS.  By  electricity  generated  by  the  water  power. 

This  pumping  plant  would  irrigate  1,403,000  acres  of  land  of  this  project;  then  by 
a  second  series  of  pumps,  lifting  the  water  200  additional  feet,  they  would  get  an 
additional  acreage  of  454,000,  or  a  total  of  1,857,000  acres,  but  unfortunately  the 
additional  acreage  is  not  classified  by  the  former  chief  engineer  of  the  State  com- 
mission as  irrigable  lands. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  quite  get  this.  There  is  how  much  land  now  to  be  irrigated 
by  gravity,  General? 

General  GOETHALS.  One  million  seven  hundred  and  fifty-three  thousand  acres. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  marked  on  the  plat.     Now,  how  much  by  pumping? 

General  GOETHALS.  Additional  under  the  gravity  project  or  the  pumping  project? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Pumping. 

General  GOETHALS.  The  pumping  project  direct,  1,403,000  acres. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  with  the  addition  that  you  speak  of,  another  400,000  acres? 

General  GOETHALS.  But  not  all  irrigable  lands? 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  it  would  be  about  one  million  four  hundred  thousand  and  some  odd 
acres. 

General  GOETHALS.  Comparable  with  1,700,000  of  the  gravity  project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Where  is  that  land  located  that  is  to  be  irrigated  by  gravity? 

General  GOETHALS.  There  it  is  [indicating  on  map];  all  of  that  area  in  there  in- 
cluded— some  of  the  land  in  yellow  which  was  excluded  because  of  work  which  will 
have  to  be  done  on  the  land  before  it  could  be  cultivated. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  reason  I  ask  you  that  question  was,  I  was  using  a  small  map  here 
that  was  issued  by  the  Columbia  Basin  project  and  I  did  not  see  all  that. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Is  it  your  judgment  that  it  would  be  better  to  undertake  the  gravity 
development  from  Newport  rather  than  this  proposed  pumping  scheme  at  Grand 
Coulee? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Your  recommendation  is  to  that  effect? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  sir.  Of  course  there  is  opposition  to  that,  so  now  the 
commission  ought  to  settle  that  question. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Opposition  to  what? 

General  GOETHALS.  To  gravity  in  favor  of  the  pumping  plan. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  What  is  the  reason  for  the  opposition,  if  practically  the  same  area  is 
to  be  irrigated? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  is  not  the  same  area  to  be  covered.  Of  course  you  frequently 
have  advocates  for  different  methods  of  doing  the  same  thing,  and  they  become  very 
strongly  in  favor  of  their  respective  plans. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Has  an  estimate  been  made  of  the  cost  per  acre  of  irrigating  by 
pumping? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  we  made  an  estimate  of  it— $159,  Dam  No.  1,  which  does 
not  give  you  enough;  $163  for  No.  2,  as  comparable  with  $145  an  acre. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  smaller  figure  is  gravity? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  the  smaller  figure,  $159,  is  Dam  No.  1. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  But  the  maintenance  and  operation  costs  thereafter  for  pumping 
would  be  greater? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  beg  pardon,  $144.99,  which  is  the  smallest  of  all,  General,  is  the 
gravity. 

General  GOETHALS.  The  gravity,  yes;  without  any  pumping. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  includes  the  canal,  dams,  and  structures? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  includes  all  structures  down  t,o  the  falls. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  15 

Mr.  RAKER.  Commencing  from  Albany  Falls  down  to  Hillcrest  and  the  distribution 
to  the  farms? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Does  it  include  storage  at  Flathead  and  Pend  Oreille  also? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  I  understand  from  your  statement  that  from  Albany  Falls  dam, 
from  the  Pend  Oreille  River  on  down  past  Spokane  on  to  the  territory  described,  the 
survey  as  to  the  storage,  dams,  tunnels,  and  clear  on  down  to  the  tract  to  be  irrigated, 
has  been  sufficiently  surveyed  and  estimated  to  find  its  cost  and  whether  it  is  feasible? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  thing  necessary — well,  the  same  is  true  with  reference  to  the 
1,  2,  and  3  dams — No.  1,  No.  2,  and  No.  3  on  the  Columbia  River,  relative  to 
pumping? 

General  GOETHALS.  They  have  made  investigation  borings  there.  If  I  were  to 
undertake  a  pumping  project  I  would  make  some  additional  borings  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  To  see  whether  the  dams  would  stand? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  what  is  required  now,  as  I  understand  from  your  analysis  of  the 
data  furnished  you,  General,  is  of  the  lakes,  the  Pend  Oreille  Lake  and  the  Flathead 
Lake  over  in  Montana  and  Idaho. 

General  GOETHALS.  That  water-diversion  question  has  got  to  be  settled.  I  did  not 
touch  that  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  will  be  as  to  the  amount  of  water? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  the  amount  of  water  is  available.  The  right  of  Washington 
to  withdraw  from  Idaho  and  Montana  water  to  go  into  those  two  States — that  question 
I  have  not  touched  upon. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  has  already  been  settled  by  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
between  Kansas  and  Colorado  and  Wyoming. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  is  that? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  has  already  been  settled  by  a  recent  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  a  case  between  Wyoming,  Kansas,  and  Colorado. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  Washington  if  it  is  ahead  can  appropriate  water? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  say  in  an  appropriation  in  States  the  same  rule  will  hold  regard- 
less of  State  lines;  the  man  that  makes  the  appropriation  gets  the  beneficial  use  and 
has  the  same  rights  regardless  of  State  lines  as  he  would  have  in  the  State  permitting 
the  appropriation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  that  being  the  premise  to  start  from,  did  you  in  your  investigation 
make  any  analysis  to  see  whether  or  not  the  State  of  Washington  has  any  pretended 
claims  or  alleged  claims  to  the  waters  of  Idaho  or  Montana? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  did  not.  I  assumed  that  the  State  of  Washington  would  be 
able  to  draw  the  water  from  Pend  Oreille  and  Flathead  Lakes,  on  the  assurance  of 
statements  made.  I  did  not  go  into  that  question  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And,  of  course,  from  the  prior  statement,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
follow'  that  you  would  be  unable  to  say  how  much  of  this  water  would  be  required  to 
be  drawn  off  for  the  two  eastern  States? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  about  how  much  electric  energy  is  developed  by  these  projects? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  did  not  go  into  that  at  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Did  they  not  have  that  data?  Now  I  think  there  are  seven  tunnels 
there? 

General  GOETHALS.  There  are  seven  tunnels. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Coming  from  Albany  Falls  down  to  the  Hillcrest  end  of  the  supply? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes.     I  did  "not  go  into  the  power  question. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Could  you  give  off-hand— — • 

General  GOETHALS  (interposing).  Mr.  Goodner,  I  think,  can  give  you  something  on 
that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Just  a  question  on  that.  Could  you  give  off-hand  the  approximate  fall 
from  Albany  Falls  down  to  Hillcrest? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Two  hundred  and  sixty-five  feet. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  would  be  almost  a  continuous  supply  of  water,  would  it  not? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  that  is  a  continuous  supply  of  water,  but  you  are  going  to 
make  canals  only  large  enough  to  carry  water  for  irrigation  purposes;  at  certain  seasons 
of  the  year  perhaps  nearly  all  of  it  will  be  used  for  irrigation. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  long  is  this  canal  to  the  project  from  Newport? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  One  hundred  and  thirty  miles. 

25410—22 2 


16  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  Now,  this  20.000  second-feet  that  is  needed  to  irrigate  by  gravity,  you 
mean  that  is  20,000  second-feet  at  the  project  or  at  the  intake  at  the  dam? 

General  GOETHALS.  At  the  intake. 

Mr.  SIN NOTT.  Do  you  make  any  allowance  for  evaporation? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  but  it  is  a  very  small  amount  for  seepage,  because  it  is  all 
concrete.  Even  the  tunnels  are  lined  with  concrete. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  And  it  flows  very  rapidly. 

General  GOETHALS.  It  flows  rapidly. 

Mr.  HATDEN.  Is  there  any  limit  to  the  lift  by  pumping  that  water  can  be  raised 
for  irrigation  purposes,  assuming  that  you  have  very  cheap  power? 

General  GOETHALS.  Theoretically  not;  practically  yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  What  are  the  practical  difficulties? 

General  GOETHALS.  Mechanical  difficulties  in  the  pumps  themselves. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  In  other  words,  the  pump  would  wear  out  so  fast  that  it  would  not 
pay  to  install  it? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes — well,  it  is  the  quantity  of  water  you  have  got  to  raise 
and  the  mechanical  difficulties  that  come  in,  due  to  the  construction  of  the  pumps. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Everybody  else  knows — but,  General,  what  is  given  to  you  from  the 
State  of  Washington  report  as  to  the  head  of  navigation  up  the  Columbia  on  to  the 
Snake  River  that  goes  through  this  territory?  Was  that  considered? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  did  not  consider  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  did  not  go  into  the  question  of  navigation? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  I  did  not  go  into  the  question  of  navigation  of  the  Columbia. 
I  looked  into  the  question  of  the  effect  on  navigation  by  the  construction  of  this  dam 
under  the  treaty  rights  with  Great  Britain  and  concluded  that  the  dam  if  constructed 
there  would  have  to  have  a  lock  in  it  unless  the  existing  treaty  were  modified. 

Mr.  RA.KER.  For  what  purpose,  for  the  fish  to  go  up? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  for  the  protection  of  navigation  of  the  river.  Under  the 
provisions  of  the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  no  obstructions 
to  navigation  of  that  river  may  be  permitted. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  what  is  the  highest  point  of  navigation  on  the  Columbia  River? 
Does  it  go  up  into  Canada? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  can  be  made  navigable  to  Canada  by  a  series  of  locks  and 
dams  over  the  falls,  just  as  they  dd  through  the  Cascades. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  If  I  may  interrupt,  just  above  Pasco  is  where  we  have  the  open  river 
usually  at  this  time,  and  we  have  some  rapids  that  interfere  here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Under  the  treaty  between  Canada,  or  the  British  Government,  and 
the  United  States,  these  dams,  1,  2,  and  3,  that  have  been  spoken  of,  could  not  be 
put  in  permanently? 

General  GOETHALS.  Well,  you  would  have  to  pro-side  for  navigation.  The  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  requires  the  Columbia  River,  between 
the  international  boundary  and  the  ocean,  to  be  kept  open  for  navigation.  That  is 
a  treaty  provision. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  British  do  not  navigate  down  there. 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  but  they  maintain  that  must  be  an  open  river  for  naviga- 
tion purposes,  and  the  time  is  coming  when  that  will  be  the  case. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Of  course  we  can  not  just  take  this  treaty  and  throw  it  away  like  a 
scrap  of  paper. 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  you  can  not  do  that.  Great  Britain  would  not  let  us  do  it. 
I  doubt  very  much  if  Great  Britain  will  allow  us  to  build  that  dam  without  some 
provision  for  navigation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  the  reason  I  was  asking. 

General  GOETHALS.  I  doubt  if  Great  Britain  will  consider  the  abrogation  of  that 
treaty,  because  it  gives  her  some  rights  which  in  the  future  may  be  very  vital  to  her. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  pumping  plan  is  almost  eliminated? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  the  pumping  plan  is  not  eliminated  if  you  provide  a  lock 
in  there  to  accommodate  navigation. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  How  much  would  that  add  to  the  expense? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  that  just  mean  the  navigation  of  craft  without  any  other  utiliza- 
tion of  the  river  as  it  relates  to  fish  going  up? 

General  GOETHALS.  Oh,  it  is  outside  of  the  fish  going  up.  Navigation  of  the  river 
means  boats  going  up  and  down  the  river. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  does  not  include  also  the  right  of  the  fish  to  come  up? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  I  guess  not.  The  fish  do  go  up.  You  can  put  fish  ladders  on 
your  dam  and  the  fish  will  go  up. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  17 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  can  you  build  them  that  high? 

General  GOETHALS.  You  might  try  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  that  is  very  important.  We  have  that  question  involved  now,. 
General.  What  is  your  judgment  as  to  that?  It  is  vitally  important.  Matters  in- 
volved like  that  and  others  must  be  considered.  How  high  can  you  build  fish  ladders? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Your  engineering  experience  has  not  gone  into  that? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  thought  I  would  get  an  opinion  from  you  now  in  advance. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  General,  Isn't  there  a  project  there  at  Priest  Rafrpids? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  there  is  a  project  there  at  Priest  Rapids. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Does  that  pink  overlap  on  that? 

General  GOETHALS.  Well,  that  is  where  there  is  some  discussion  of  a  project,  the 
Priest  Rapids  project.  It  will  overlap  this. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Have  they  done  any  work  there? 

General  GOETHALS.  No. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  project  contemplated  is  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Columbia 
River. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  the  Pierce  Project? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  General,  do  I  understand  that  the  dam  that  will  supply  the  water 
by  gravitation  will  not  be  sufficient  to  irrigate  that  body  of  land  there  in  pink? 

General  GOETHALS.  This  pink  area  here  [indicating  on  map]? 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Down  here  [indicating],  this  entire  body.  It  will  not  impound 
sufficient  water  there  to  irrigate  that  land? 

General  GOETHALS.  You  can  by  pumping.  You  can  irrigate  all  of  this  down  here 
[indicating].  You  see  there  is  the  part  that  will  irrigate. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  understand  you  are  building  two  dams  here,  one  for  pumping 
and  one  for  gravitation? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  there  are  two  projects,  two  projects  for  irrigating  part  of 
that  area.  One  of  them  is  by  damming  the  Columbia  River  and  then  pumping  the 
water  to  an  artificial  lake  and  allowing  it  to  come  down  by  gravity,  the  other  is  the 
construction  of  a  dam  with  canals,  the  entire  length  of  which  will  be  gravity. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  would  be  sufficient  to  irrigate  how  much? 

General  GOETHALS.  One  million  seven  hundred  thousand  acres  of  land,  by  gravity 
plan. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  dam  would  only  be  constructed  in  the  event  you  wish 
to  irrigate  additional  land? 

General  GOETHALS.  No,  you  do  not  get  it  yet.  That  is  the  land  in  pink  on  the 
large  map.  There  are  two  projects;  one  is  a  gravity  project  and  the  other  is  a  pumping 
project.  The  gravity  project  contemplates  the  construction  of  a  dam  for  storing 
water  in  Pend  Oreille  and  another  dam  for  storing  water  in  Flathead  Lake.  They 
are  low  dams.  The  water  then  comes  down  through  these  canals  by  gravity.  There 
is  no  pumping  in  either  of  these. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No,  but  this  gravity  system  water  is  1,753,000  acres? 

General  GOETHALS.  By  the  gravity  system,  yes.  Now  that  is  one.  The  other  plan 
is  the  construction  of  a  dam  across  the  Columbia  River.  Your  water  source  is  then 
the  Columbia  River  and  you  must  pump  that  water  to  an  artificial  lake  from  which 
the  water  will  by  gravity  come  over  a  certain  portion  of  this  area,  1,400,000  acres. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Then,  under  the  dam  that  you  speak  of  over  on  the  right  there  you 
would  have  no  complications  with  the  British  Government,  would  you? 

General  GOETHALS.  None  at  all.  and  you  have  no  difficulties  with  pumps. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  will  not  have  both  the  pumping  and  the  gravity  systems?  Is 
that  correct— at  the  same  time? 

General  GOETHALS.  If  you  take  your  water  supply  from  the  Pend  Oreille  with  the 
storage  that  may  be  required  from  the  Flathead,  you  get  no  pumping  whatsoever 
for  the  1,700,000  acres. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  But  by  putting  in  the  dam  there  you  have  to  pump? 

General  GOETHALS.  By  putting  the  dam  there  you  have  got  to  pump  all  the  water 
required  for  irrigating  1,400.000  acres  from  the  Columbia  River.  Is  that  clear,  now? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General,  your  estimates  of  cost  per  acre  of  $145  was  based  on  the 
gravity  system  alone— that  is,  the  two  lakes? 

General  GOETHALS.  The  two  lakes,  yes;  the  construction  of  a  dam  here  [indicating] 
to  raise  that  for  storage  purposes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  if  you  wish  to  bring  in  400,000  additional  acres  represented 
by  the  land  there,  you  would  have  to  build  storage? 


18  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

General  GOETHALS.  To  put  in  the  pink  you  have  got  secondary  storage  from  which 
you  pump  to  the  additional  acreage.  That  is  right. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  but  which  would  be  supplied  from  this  dam  you  propose  to 
build? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  still  supplied  by  this  water. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  is  no  alternative  proposition. 

General  GOETHALS.  No  alternative  proposition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Oh,  yes,  I  see. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  And  you  would  not  in  any  event  have  to  have  them  both  to  cover 
all  of  this  pink  land,  or  practically  all? 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  you  would  not  have  to  have  them  both;  you  would  have 
one  or  the  other. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  But  the  one  will  irrigate  about  300,000  acres  less  than  the  other. 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  sir:  by  gravity  alone. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Are  these  vertical  lines  intended  to  cover  this  area.  I  see  they  run 
out  there. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  the  fault  of  the  blueprinting.    That  is  faulty  blueprinting. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  But  that  entire  pink  area  is  intended  to  be  in  the  vertical  lines? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  the  gravity  system  and  the  pumping  systems  are  two 
separate 'independent  methods. 

General  GOETHALS.  Of  accomplishing  the  same  result. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Irrigating  the  same  class  of  land. 

General  GOETHALS.  But  it  does  not,  you  see. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Practically  the  same. 

General  GOETHALS.  Practically  the  same  tract  of  land. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  And  one  costs" $145  per  acre  and  the  other  $159? 

General  GOETHALS.  $163. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  on  the  gravity  system  I  see  on  the  map  before  me  and  the  one 
there,  we  still  pump  into  Canada  relative  to  the  water  on  the  Flathead  and  the  Pend 
Oreille. 

General  GOETHALS.  You  have  got  your  Pend  Oreille  going  into  Canada  there. 
That  is  where  you  pump  into  Canada,  yes,  but  you  do  not  deprive  them  of  any  water. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  the  reason  I  wanted  to  ask  that  question.  It  would  not  affect 
the  natural  ordinary  flow  of  the  water  in  any  way  so  as  to  affect  the  Canadian  rights 
to  the  water  in  the  Pend  Oreille  River,  which  is  one  of  the  main  branches  of  the 
Columbia? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  is  right,  one  of  the  main  branches  of  the  Columbia  River. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  by  the  gravity  system  you  irrigate  1.753,000  acres? 

General  GOETHALS.  Without  pumping. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Without  pumping,  but  by  putting  in  secondary  pumps  you  irrigate 
how  many  acres? 

General  GOETHALS.  Four  hundred  thousand  additional  acres. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  that  will  irrigate  2,100.000-odd  acres? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes.  Then  you  can  get  an  additional  amount  if  you  will 
clear  some  of  that  land  of  the  stones  and  so  on.  That  is  entirely  excluded  from  our 
figures. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Just  by  way  of  summing  up,  although  the  general  has  covered  this, 
I  would  like  to  ask  this  question:  All  things  considered,  treaty  rights,  water  flow, 
engineering  difficulties,  and  all  of  those  problems,  which  of  the  two,  including  the 
amount  of  land  to  be  irrigated  and  the  cost — which  of  the  two  projects  appeals  to  you 
as  the  more  feasible? 

General  GOETHALS.  The  gravity  project,  and  I  so  recommended  to  the  State. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  did  you  go  into  the  climatic  and  soil  conditions  any  at  all, 
General? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  as  exhibited  by  their  records. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  From  the  amount  of  land  to  be  irrigated,  taking  the  gravity  system 
without  any  pumping,  is  it  your  judgment,  from  the  thorough  investigation  that  you 
have  made,"  that  the  project  is  feasible? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  is. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  would  justify  the  expenditure? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  sir.  I  am  an  enthusiast.  You  must  take  that  into  con- 
sideration when  you  consider  my  attitude.  I  went  out  there  doubting;  I  came  back 
a  strong  convert. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Now,  you  took  into  consideration  the  fact  that  this  money,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  original  price  and  cost  of  the  land,  would  be  added  to  the  land  and  that 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IBHIGATION  PROJECT.  19 

these  people  who  obtained  the  water  would  pay  back  to  the  Government  the  money 
invested? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Did  you  figure  on  any  reasonable  rate  of  interest  that  should  be 
charged  up  in  the  construction  of  the  project? 
General  GOETHALS.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  would  be  your  judgment  on  that? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  thought  the  Government  ought  to  bear  the  interest  on  account 
of  the  return  that  the  Government  would  get  in  other  ways  from  it.  I  regarded  it 
after  I  went  over  it  as  a  national  project.  The  Government  would  get  its  returns 
through  taxation,  not  only  in  that  section  of  the  country,  but  all  over  the  United  States , 
and  I  felt  that  the  Government  ought  to  absorb  the  interest  on  the  investment. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Now,  in  addition  to  your  answer  to  the  question  that  I  have  just 
propounded,  there  is  an  additional  value  that  would  come  to  that  locality  and  to  the 
Government  generally  by  way  of  development  of  electric  energy,  is  there  not? 
General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  very  much. 
Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  you  are  not  able  to  say? 
General  GOETHALS.  No;  I  am  not  able  to  say  anything  about  that. 
Mr.  SUMMERS.  Are  any  of  these  people  here  in  a  position  to  say  that? 
General  GOETHALS.  I  think  Mr.  Goodner  will  be  able  to  answer  that. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  Where  will  these  secondary  pumping  projects  be?    You  can  develop 
water  power  at  those  points? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  you  can  develop  water  power  at  those  points  for  that  pur- 
pose. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  market  value  of  the  land  there  at  White  Bluffs? 
General  GOETHALS.  I  can  not  give  you  that.    The  State  assured  me  that  all  that 
land  could  be  acquired  at  from  $5  to  $15  an  acre. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  mean  land  under  irrigation  now. 
General  GOETHALS.  Oh,  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Under  the  State  soldier  settlement  act  it  is  from  $300  to  $500  an  acre 
with  the  improvements  that  the  State  is  putting  on  the  land. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  §300  to  $500  an  acre? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  Land  that  is  in  orchard? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  No,  sir:  that  is  first-class  farming  land. 
Mr.  SUMMERS.  Including  what  improvements? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  put  on  a  four-room  house,  barn,  the  usual  outbuildings,  and  a 
well  and  electric  pump  adequate  for  irrigating  20  acres. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  And  what  rate  of  interest? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  Four  per  cent. 
Mr.  HAYDEN.  How  long  do  the  payments  extend? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  Twenty  years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  is  State  settlement  for  the  soldiers? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  General,  it  is  not  contemplated  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  buy 
any  land  excepting  for  the  right  of  way  and  damages  around  the  lake?  You  do  not 
contemplate  buying  any  land  within  the  project? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  was  thinking  of  settlement.  I  had  in  mind  the  question  of 
settlement,  whether  the  project  would  pay  on  the  basis  of  the  farmer  that  buys  land 
from  $5  to  $15  an  acre. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Those  already  owning  land  there  of  course  would  have  water  and 
pay  for  it.    The  Government  would  not  have  to  buy  any  land? 
General  GOETHALS.  Oh,  no. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  A  gross  charge  of  $200  an  acre  spread  over  20  years  would  be  $10  per 
acre  a  year. 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Do  you  think  the  land  would  stand  a  charge  of  $10  an  acre  a  year? 
General  GOETHALS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Of  course  if  interest  has  to  be  charged  and  the  payments  amortized 
say,  over  40  years,  the  annual  payment  would  still  be  but  $10  an  acre. 

General  GOETHALS.  I  have  asked  Mr.  Goodner  to  get  data  on  that  feature  of  it. 
He  will  be  better  prepared  to  answer  that  than  I. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  your  investigation  present  this  fact,  gentlemen,  that  these  peo- 
ple or  that  that  territory  as  represented  by  the  people  that  now  own  it,  that  it  is 
practically  all  privately  owned  land  except  about  5  per  cent — I  call  railroads  pri- 
vately owned  land — that  it  will  be  subject  to  taxation  for  the  purpose  of  paying  this 
cost  back  to  the  Government? 


20  COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION"  PROJECT. 

General  GOETHALS.  I  think  it  should. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  should,  but  what  arrangement  has  been  made?  What  is  there  to 
determine  now  that  this  land  will  be,  that  these  people  will  be  obligated  to  pav  this 
money  back  to  the  Government  for  construction  of  this  project? 

General  GOETHALS.  I  can  not  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  mean  will  they  be  willing  to  go  into  a  project  or  irrigation  dis- 

General  GOETHALS.  Oh,  they  can  not.  They  have  got  no  monev.  Nobody  would 
finance  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  mean  they  would  if  they  had  the  promise  of  the  Government. 
General  GOETHALS.  Oh,  they  would  if  they  could. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  what  assurance  is  there  now  up  to  the  present  time  to 
the  Government  that  this  territory  will  be  subject  to  the  lien  of  the  Government  for 
the  money  expended? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  would  be  willing  to  organize  themselves  into  an  irrigation 
district? 

General  GOETHALS.  Mr.  Goodner  can  answer  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  assumed  that,  Mr.  Sinnott,  but  I  wondered  whether  or  not  that  had 
been  done  and  was  part  of  the  general  investigation. 

General  GOETHALS.  No;  I  was  investigating  the  feasibility  of  the  project  from  an 
engineering  standpoint. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  going  a  little  further,  as  to  the  practicability  so  far  as  the  Govern- 
ment is  concerned  with  assurance  of  full  repayment. 

General  GOETHALS.  Mr.  Goodner  will  take  that  up. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  has  not  been  reached  yet,  Mr.  Raker. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  would  be  the  water  duty  on  this  land,  General? 

General  GOETHALS.  Do  you  remember  that,  Mr.  Goodner? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Thirty-three  inches  net  delivered. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Per  acre? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes.  It  varies  from  24  inches  on  part  of  the  land  to  as  high  as  5 
feet  on  some  of  it.  Every  section  is  classified  as  to  its  actual  net  requirements,  and  the 
average  on  the  total  is  33  inches  delivered. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  much  is  that  in  acre-feet? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  2f  acre-feet. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  rather  excessive,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Better  too  much  than  too  little. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Find  out  while  you  are  on  that,  Mr.  Sinnott,  as  to  what  arrangements 
the  general  made  in  his  investigation  as  to  drainage. 

General  GOETHALS.  We  looked  into  that.  There  is  a  natural  drainage  all  through 
that  country. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  would  not  be  a  large  expenditure? 

General  GOETHALS.  No. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  did  not  anticipate  originally  the  necessity  of  drainage.  They 
used  to  think  the  settlers  could  do  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  have  asked  the  general  if  he  figured  that  in 
this  instance. 

General  GOETHALS.  There  is  a  map  in  the  original  report  showing  that  drainage. 
You  see  all  of  this  land  was  originally  drained  by  nature.  That  is  the  formation  of  the 
land.  It  was  at  one  time  entirely  submerged,  so  it  naturally  drained  itself  and  it  left 
the  drainage  canal  still  there  for  us. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Grand  Coulee  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  old  Columbia  River  bed? 

General  GOETHALS.  That  is  one  of  the  traditions. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Is  the  land  under  the  project  generally  rolling? 

General  GOETHALS.  Yes;  it  is  rolling. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  is  not  level  like  our  deserts  in  the  Southwest? 

General  GOETHALS.  No. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  a  sandy  soil  like  the  Kennewick  country? 

General  GOETHALS.  It  is  like  the  Yakima  and  Wenatchee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  are  no  other  questions,  we  will  excuse  the  general.  We 
appreciate  your  coming  here,  General,  and  giving  us  the  information  that  you  have. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  General  Goethals  made  quite  a  comprehensive 
report  of  his  studies  on  this  project  to  the  department  of  conservation  and  develop- 
ment of  the  State  of  Washington,  and  I  should  like  to  ask  to  have  that  report  made 
a  part  of  the  hearings,  not  for  printing  unless  the  committee  desires  it,  but  for  such 
use  as  the  committee  and  members  generally  may  care  to  make  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  is  no  objection,  the  reports  of  General  Goethals  will  be 
incorporated  in  the  hearing. 


COLUMBIA  BASEST   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  21 

Shall  we  adjourn  now  until  10  o'clock  to-morrow  morning?  Do  you  think  we  can 
finish  to-morrow? 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  I  believe  we  can  if  we  could  meet  at  10  o'clock. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  Why  not  go  on  now  for  a  while? 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  well.     Mr.  Goodner  will  now  address  the  committee. 

STATEMENT   OF   MR.    IVAN   E.    GOODNER,    CHIEF  ENGINEER,    CO- 
LUMBIA BASIN  SURVEY,  STATE  OF  WASHINGTON. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  other  gentle- 
men who  have  spoken  to  you  are  known  to  you,  but  I  will  have  to  introduce  myself. 
My  name  is  Ivan  E.  Goodner,  at  the  present  time  chief  engineer  of  two  divisions  of 
the  Washington  State  department  of  conservation  and  development.  In  that  depart- 
ment we  have  the  Columbia  Basin  survey,  with  which  I  have  been  associated  for 
four  years,  and  we  also  have  a  score  or  more  of  irrigation  and  drainage  projects  in 
the  State,  all  of  which  are  in  active  operation  or  construction,  and  all  of  which  come 
under  our  direct  supervision. 

I  have  been  engaged  in  irrigation  or  power  construction  exclusively  since  1901, 
and  frankly  I  do  not  know  much  of  anything  except  those  two  lines. 

When  the  Columbia  Basin  Commission  started  its  work  under  the  appropriation 
nearly  four  years  ago  it  was  at  that  time  thought  that  the  project-construction  cost 
would  probably  run  to  $200  an  acre.  We  therefore  knew  that  we  must  pick  out  for 
irrigation  only  those  lands  which  under  any  fair  plan  of  financing  would  stand  a  cost 
of  $200  an  acre.  With  that  in  mind  we  got  Mr.  Guy  C.  Finlay,  who  was  then  project 
manager  under  the  Reclamation  Service  of  the  Tieton  project,  one  of  the  units  of  the 
Yakima  project,  together  with  F.  W.  Welch,  who  was  with  the  United  States  Recla- 
mation Service  on  the  Big  Bend  project,  and  they  spent  nearly  a  year  in  making  a 
detailed  classification  of  every  section  of  the  3,000,000  acres  which  geographically 
lie  within  the  project,  classifying  those  lands  and  rejecting  those  which  would  not 
stand  $200  an  acre.  We  found  that  60  per  cent  of  the  land  would  apparently  stand 
such  a  cost,  giving  us  1,753,000  acres.  That  is  shown  on  the  second  map  in  the  green 
shading. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  W7hat  do  you  mean  by  the  green? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  Green  or  blue,  depending  upon  your  eyes. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  looks  blue  to  me. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  remaining  40  per  cent  was  partially  too  high  to  be  reached  by 
the  gravity  lines  and  partially  land  which  would  require  considerable  labor  before 
it  would  be  available  for  irrigation.    The  lands  which  are  first  class  but  too  high  are 
seen  in  pink.    They  can  be  reached  by  what  we  call  "secondary  pumping,"  under 
either  the  gravity  or  the  primary  pumping  alternate  plans. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  high  will  you  have  to  pump  to  the  pink? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  The  maximum  lift  to  reach  any  of  the  pink  areas  is  150  feet. 
At  the  same  time  that  the  land  was  being  classified  for  its  agricultural  quality  a 
classification  was  being  made  by  the  same  people  as  to  the  water  duty  required  on 
the  lands.     This  varied  on  the  higher  areas  in  this  end,  the  north  and  east  portion 
of  the  project,  which  now  occasionally  gets  a  successful  wheat  crop,  from  about  24 
inches  net  duty,  to  the  area  in  the  extreme  southwest  and  the  extreme  south,  where 
it  is  completely  desert,  and  at  the  present  tome  small  pumping  projects  are  using 
5  feet  of  water.    We  found  an  average  demand,  as  I  stated  before,  over  the  entire 
project,  of  33  inches. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  24  inches  2  acre-feet? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes;  2  acre-feet.     It  varies  from  2  to  5  acre-feet. 
Mr.  RAKER.  I  never  noticed  it  before,  but  just  looking  now,  about  half  of  that 
land  is  already  irrigated. 
Mr.  GOODNER.  Not  on  that  project. 
Mr.  SUMMERS.  None  of  this  is  irrigated. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  looking  over  here  at  this  map,  existing  irrigation  areas,  State  of 
Washington,  and  then  I  look  at  this  map  and  see  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  legend  is  unfortunately  misleading.  Here  the  green  represents 
existing  projects;  on  this  one  the  blue  or  green  represents  irrigable  by  gravity,  of 
the  highest  class. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  just  casting  my  eye  from  one  map  to  the  other  and  I  thought 
that  showed  the  same  thing. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Taking  the  water  total  estimated  in  that  way  we  found  that  there 
was  a  total  requirement  of  nearly  6,000,000  acre-feet.  In  arriving  at  that  we  have 
allowed  for  losses  aggregating  20  "per  cent.  On  a  concrete-lined  system  20  per  cent 


22  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

loss  is  excessive.  We  do  not  expect  really  that  we  will  get  any  such  loss  as  that, 
but  to  meet  the  average  loss  on  other  projects  and  to  avoid  criticism  that  we  have  not 
been  conservative,  we  have  allowed  for  nearly  20  per  cent  losses.  Those  losses  were 
estimated,  each  kind  in  particular,  the  seepage  in  the  different  areas,  the  evaporation 
in  the  different  areas,  the  losses  in  failure  to  adequately  control  deliveries,  and  all 
those  various  things  which  enter  in. 

Coming  then  to  the  two  sources  of  water  which  could  supply  such  an  amount  as  that 
we  find  first  the  Columbia  River,  where  it  can  be  supplied  by  pumping  to  a  gross  lift 
of  615  feet.  That  gross  lift  would  be  divided,  as  General  Goethals  has  said,  by  200 
feet  lift  by  dam,  and  pumping  415  feet  more;  or,  as  was  suggested  at  one  time,  the  total 
615  feet  might  be  made  by  one  dam,  if  such  a  thing  were  feasible.  That  would  result 
in  putting  the  great  smelters  and  mines  up  here  in  Canada,  the  Canadian  Pacific 
Railroad,  and  so  forth,  under  two  to  three  hundred  feet  of  water.  That  is  a  minor 
matter,  of  course,  in  connection  with  a  dam  615  feet  high. 

Two  hundred  and  eleven  feet  head  is  the  highest  that  we  can  go  without  meeting 
objections,  which  the  State's  attorney  general  had  told  us  would  be  insuperable. 

The  other  alternative  was  to  get  the  gravity  diversion  somewhere  from  the  Pend 
Oreille  River.  You  are  all  more  or  less  familiar  with  the  Colorado  River.  For  20 
years  past  its  average  flow  has  been  between  16,000,000  and  17,000,000  feet  per  year; 
the  Pend  Oreille  River,  which  in  the  East  at  least  is  rarely  heard  of,  is  a  good  deal 
bigger  stream.  Its  average  flow  over  the  same  20  years  has  been  more  than  19,000,000 
acre-feet.  Of  that  19,000,000  acre-feet — 
Mr.  SINNOTT  (interposing).  How  many  second-feet  is  that? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  varies  from  a  minimum  of  2,500  to  a  maximum  of  140,000 
second-feet.    Of  course  the  variation  is  not  nearly  so  great  as  on  the  Colorado,  but  the 
gross  annual  flow  averages  considerably  more. 
Mr.  RAKER.  At  what  point  do  you  figure  that? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  at  our  point  of  diversion  at  Newport,  and  the  Colorado  as 
reported  near  Yuma. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  that  as  it  gets  down  it  adds  a  great  deal  more  to  it? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  There  is  very  little  water  added  to  the  Pend  Oreille  River. 
Another  question  has  been  asked,  why  we  get  no  run-off  here  [indicating  on  map]. 
We  can  not  get  any  run-off  because  there  is  no  rain.    Even  if  these  streams  were  high 
enough  so  that  they  could  be  diverted  on  this  land,  they  have  no  flow,  clear  up  here 
to  Republic.    As  is  shown  in  the  State  report,  we  get  a  rainfall  of  only  7  to  10  inches. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Don't  you  get  snow  in  the  wintertime? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  All  the  rainfall  that  we  get  comes  in  the  winter  as  snow.    We  get 
none  in  the  summer. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  No  rain  at  all? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No;  there  is  no  run-off  to  those  streams. 
Mr.  RAKER.  That  is,  all  that  northeastern  part? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes;  the  minute  you  come  to  the  Pend  Oreille  River,  from  there 
eastward  throughout  the  entire  watershed,  you  get  up  then  into  the  enormous  snow- 
falls, so  that  from  this  area,  which  is  24,000  square  miles  inside  the  blue  lines,  we  get 
an  annual  run-off  of  greater  than  19,000,000  acre-feet  of  water.  That  comes  sometimes 
in  tremendous  floods;  in  fact,  May  and  June  of  every  year  in  the  record  have  shown 
floods  greater  than  the  total  storage  which  we  could  possibly  make  in  all  the  lakes  of 
that  country. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  has  the  same  effect  after  it  passes  the  Grand  Coulee  until  it  gets 
clear  on  down  to  where  it  joins  the  Snake  River? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes;  but  the  effect  of  the  Pend  Oreille  floods  is  largely  masked  in 
the  Columbia  River,  because  the  Columbia,  coming  from  the  north,  from  British 
Columbia,  has  a  flow  of  from  eight  to  ten  times  larger  than  the  Pend  Oreille,  so  that 
the  Pend  Oreille  flood  happens  to  come  simultaneously  with  the  Canadian  run-off, 
it  does  not  raise  the  Columbia  by  itself  to  a  flood  stage. 
Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  ordinarily  the  case  that  they  do  not  meet? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Ordinarily  they  do  not  meet,  because  the  Canadian  boundary  runs 
from  two  to  five  hundred  miles — the  Canadian  run  off — two  to  five  hundred  miles 
farther  north,  and  it  comes  nearly  a  month  later.  These  Montana  areas  you  see  are 
way  down  to  the  south  and  the  snows  melt  and  go  off  much  earlier  than  they  do  in 
Canada. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Your  storage  reservoirs  are  going  to  be  on  Pend  Oreille  and  Flathead? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  And  probably  also  on  Priest  Lake. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Where  will  you  build  your  dams,  on  Pend  Oreille  and  Flathead? 
Mr.  GOODNER.  On  Flathead,  three-quarters  of  a  mile  below  Poison. 
Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  is  the  height  01  the  dam? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  23 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  would  raise  the  water  about  18  feet  under  the  maximum  develop- 
ment, and  I  would  like  to  take  that  up  more  in  detail  in  connection  with  the  discussion 
of  a  joint  power  and  irrigation  development. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  high  is  the  dam  at  Pend  Oreille? 

Mr.  GOODN-ER.  At  Pend  Oreille  we  will  raise  the  average  water  level  14  feet.  Flat- 
head  has  120,000  acres  of  surface  at  low  water,  Pend  Oreille  80,000,  and  Priest  Lake 
30,000.  You  see,  it  only  takes  10  or  14  feet  on  those  three  lakes  to  run  us  up  to  over 
3,000,000  acre-feet  of  storage. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  For  both? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  there  any  insurmountable  objections  to  the  raising  of  those  lakes, 
like  there  are  in  other  lakes  in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  GOODN-ER.  If  we  raise  them  to  the  limits  which  we  contemplate,  there  are  no 
serious  objections;  if  they  are  raised  to  the  limit  which  has  been  proposed  in  an  appli- 
cation before  the  Federal  Power  Commission  by  some  of  the  power  companies,  there 
would  be  serious  objection. 

The  recommendation  of  the  Columbia  River  Board  of  Engineers  to  the  Federal 
Power  Commission  strikes  a  middle  ground,  going  somewhat  higher  in  storage  than 
the  State  authorities  of  Washington  had  contemplated  but  not  going  as  high  as  the 
Montana  Power  Co.  had  asked  for.  They  propose  a  height  which  would  give  a  regu- 
lated flow  out  of  Flathead  Lake  of  6,000  second-feet  or  more  the  year  around.  If  that 
development  is  made  by  the  power  companies  in  advance  of  the  Columbia  Basin 
development,  the  Columbia  Basin  project  will  need  to  spend  practically  nothing 
beyond,  because  the  regulation  which  we  desire  will  have  been  placed  on  Flathead 
Lake  by  the  power  companies  operating  in  Montana. 

On  tile  other  hand,  if  the  irrigation  project  should  develop  first,  it  would  only  require 
about  2  feet  additional  storage  on  top  of  our  plan  to  give  the  regulation  which  the 
power  companies  desire,  at  comparatively  small  cost  to  them. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Would  it  be  interrupting  your  general  outline  statement  to  ask  you 
this  question:  What  arrangements  have  you  made  up  to  the  present  time  regarding 
securing  the  right  to  dam  up,  appropriate"  or  divert  and  appropriate  these  waters  that 
you  speak  of  down  to  the  lands  that  you  are  contemplating  irrigating? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  answer  to  that  falls  into  two  parts.  Prior  to  the  recent  Supreme 
Court  decision  in  an  interstate  case,  we  had  applied  to  the  State  of  Idaho  for  a  permit 
to  divert,  store  and  divert  water  required  for  the  State  of  Washington.  Under  the 
Idaho  laws  they  were  unable  to  grant  the  permit,  yet  had  no  grounds  upon  which 
they  could  reject  it  for  this  reason:  Their  laws  require  development  to  follow  within 
two  to  five  years  of  the  granting  of  the  permit.  We  could  not  in  good  faith  file  an 
application  and  state  that  we  contemplated  development  within  two  to  five  years. 
The  application  is  therefore  on  file  with  the  Idaho  authorities,  but  neither  granted  nor 
rejected.  It  is  the  opinion  of  our  attorney  general  and  of  the  water  commissioner  of 
Idaho  that  that  preserves  our  priority  as  against  any  subsequent  attempt  to  obtain  the 
right. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  as  to  Montana. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  As  to  Montana,  there  is  no  law  in  Montana  under  which  we  can  make 
a  filing  for  diversion  and  use  of  water  outside  of  the  State.  However,  since  the  Montana 
Legislature  met,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has  made  the  decision  referred 
to,  in  which  the  priority  of  development  governs  the  use  of  the  water.  That  is  more 
or  less  a  parallel  case  to  the  recent  agreement  between  seven  States  for  the  use  of  the 
Colorado  water. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  Wyoming-Colorado  decision? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Priority  of  use  creates  priority  of  right,  regardless  of  State  lines. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  trying  to  hold  you  on  to  this  so  you  would  not  get  into  that 
agreement  between  the  seven  States,  because  I  am  going  to  ask  some  questions  about 
that  when  you  get  to  it,  but  I  would  like  to  hold  you  on  to  what  you  have  done  and 
the  Supreme  Court  decision  of  the  United  States  and  the  laws  of  the  States  of  Montana 
and  Idaho,  and  then  ask  you  if  it  is  your  view  and  your  intention  that  to  make  your- 
selves safe  you  have  to  do  this  for  the  land  in  Washington. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  have  provided  for  that  in  another  way,  and  that  is  the  second 
side  of  my  answer  to  your  question. 

WTe  have,  in  connection  with  the  State  engineer  of  Idaho  and  the  State  engineer  of 
Montana,  made  a  preliminary  estimate — final  estimate  will  be  made  out  of  the  funds 
which  this  bill  would  authorize  when  it  gets  to  the  appropriation  committee.  In  our 
preliminary  estimate  we  have  worked  out  all  the  lands  in  this  watershed  in  either 


24  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

Montana  or  Jdahq  which  could  be  irrigated.  We  have  worked  out  all  the  power 
developments  which  will  be  possible,  and  we  are  providing  in  pur  plans  to  make 
sufficient  storage  to  take  care  of  all  those  lands  and  those  power  sites,  and  still  have 
enough  left  after  they  have  got  the  prior  rights,  if  they  get  them,  for  our  use,  and  that 
is  included  in  our  costs.  If  we  get  absolute  priority  over  those  people  and  they  have  to 
build  subject  to  our  rights,  we  can  at  once  shave  several  million  dollars  off  of  our  costs, 
but  we  have  figured  our  water  supply,  our  storage,  our  regulation,  big  enough  to  take 
care  of  all  these  smaller  projects,  so  that  there  could  be  no  question  of  our  priority  or 
secondary  or  other  rights  being  adversely  affected. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  are  figuring  on  securing  a  priority  of  the  right  to  eventually  divert 
water  for  this  land  as  against  subsequent  appropriators  as  well  as  against  subsequent 
applicants  or  participants  in  the  development  of  electric  power,  are  you  not? 

Air.  GOODNER.  I  would  object,  sir,  to  using  the  term  "priority."  We  are  not 
asking  for  priority. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  you  are  asking  the  Government's  money  to  go  in  there,  and  that  is 
the  reason  I  am  asking  the  question.  I  do  not  see  where  you  get  the  theory  that  the 
Government  can  afford  to  spend  $200,000,000  for  a  dam  and  canals  and  an  irrigating 
system,  where  an  individual  would  not  dare  think  of  spending  any  money  unless  he 
knew  or  felt  quite  satisfied  that  he  has  complied  with  the  law  relative  to  the  right  to 
appropriate,  to  divert,  and  use  water. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  I  did  not  quite  understand  your  question  there.  Certainly  we  claim 
to  establish  absolute  right  to  the  water,  but  on  the  contingency  that  we  might  not  be 
able  to  get  the  first  right,  we  have  provided  in  our  estimates  sufficient  money  to  take 
care  of  all  the  possible  prior  rights  which  these  other  areas  might  develop. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Who  made  the  application  in  Idaho? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  was  made  by  the  State  supervisor  of  hydraulics,  of  Washington, 
as  trustee  for  the  State  of  Washington,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Columbia  Basin 
lands.  A  map  was  filed  showing  the  entire  area. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  There  are  no  national  parks  involved  around  the  Flathead  or  the 
Pend  Oreille  or  any  place  else  up  there? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But  this  question  of  priority  would  all  be  determined  before  any 
appropriation  other  than  this  appropriation  of  $100,000  for  investigation  would  ever  be 
secured? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  You  have  discussed  the  interest  of  the  State  of  Montana,  which  is  that 
they  naturally  desire  to  reserve  enough  water  within  the  State  to  irrigate  all  the  land 
that  can  be  irrigated  in  that  State.  The  same  is  true  of  the  State  of  Idaho.  In  your 
opinion,  is  there  ample  water  to  supply  and  take  care  of  all  the  land  in  the  Pend 
Oreille  drainage  area  in  both  of  these  States? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir.  I  will  answer  that  in  another  way.  There  are  19,000,000 
acre-feet  available,  of  which  we  need  6.000.000.  There  is  a  surplus  there  of  13,000,000 
acre-feet,  enough  for  twice  the  size  of  the  Columbia  Basin  area,  and  there  are  only 
about  150,000  or  200,000  acres  in  all  this  area  that  could  be  watered,  even  by  pumping. 
In  other  words,  their  total  demand  as  against  our  demand  for  33  inches  amounts  to 
between  2  and  3  inches  additional  storaged  on  the  Flathead  Lake  or  lakes  higher  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  contention  is  that  there  is  sufficient  water  storage  there  in 
the  Flathead  Lake  to  take  care  of  the  Montana  interests  and  also  to  contribute  toward 
the  irrigation  of  the  Columbia  River  basin? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes;  not  merely  in  Flathead  Lake  but  in  the  smaller  lakes.  These 
areas  north  of  the  Flathead  could  not  be  irrigated  from  that  lake. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  if  the  people  in  Montana  contemplate  irrigating  lands,  they 
would  not  have  their  rights  prejudiced,  or  the  use  of  the  water  prejudiced  by  your  not 
making  the  dam  sufficiently  large  to  supply  them  and  yourselves? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Their  right  would  not  be  prejudiced  at  all.  In  fact,  it  is  our  hope 
that  out  of  this  $100.000  appropriation  for  Federal  investigation  they  will  investigate 
the  storage  in  this  chain  of  lakes  sufficiently  to  allay  any  popular  feeling  that  those 
lands  and  the  irrigation  of  them  might  be  interfered  with  by  the  basin  project. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  there  any  activity  up  there  toward  irrigation  from  Flathead  Lake? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  None  particularly,  outside  of  the  Federal  claim,  and  they  have 
adopted  a  different  plan  for  irrigating  the  Flathead  project.  They  are  using  small 
storages  in  this  area  instead  of  attempting  to  develop  the  Newell  tunnel.  They,  how- 
ever, still  hold  the  right,  as  I  understand  it.  at  the  Newell  tunnel. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  the  Senators  from  Montana  either  before  the  Senate  committee 
or  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  indicate  any  particular  objection  to  this  project? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  I  was  not  here  at  that  time,  and  I  do  not  know. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  25 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  I  will  say  that  Senator  Walsh  raised  a  question  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  matter  of  the  use  of  water  in  Montana  had  been  investigated,  and  wanted  it  looked 
into,  so  that  all  rights  in  Montana  would  be  properly  protected,  and  this  bill  was 
amended  at  Mr.  Walsh's  instance,  so  as  to  cover  that  proposition  and  his  conception 
of  it. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  There  is  a  further  Federal  interest  in  this  stream  in  that  there  might 
be  public  lands  below  your  project  which  could  be  irrigated  from  its  waters.  Then 
there  is  the  question  of  maintaining  the  navigability  of  the  Columbia  River.  Have 
those  features  been  looked  into? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  We  crossed  over  into  Oregon  on  the  South  side  of  the  Columbia 
River  to  see  whether  or  not  these  areas  could  be  reached  by  extension  of  our 
lines.  We  i^und  that  they  can  not  by  any  possibility  be  reached,  for  this  reason: 
The  Columbia  River  Valley  is  a  great  many  miles  in  width  and  is  very  low  in  elevation, 
and  these  lands  in  Oregon  are  higher;  they  require  an  inverted  siphon  60  or  70  miles  in 
length  and  of  enormous  size  to  carry  any  water  from  the  Columbia  Basin  to  those  lands, 
and  those  lands  can  be  more  cheaply  served  from  the  projects  which  have  been  already 
investigated  and  some  partially  developed  in  Oregon  itself.  So  that  we  can  not  cross 
the  Columbia  River  into  Oregon  or  reach  any  lands  down  downstream  on  the  Columbia 
at  any  economic  figure  whatsoever. 

Mr.  HAYDEX*.  What  is  the  situation  on  the  Washington  side  of  the  river? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  We  ran  a  line  to  see  how  long  and  how  high  head  the  siphon  would 
have  to  have  to  reach  the  land  commonly  called  Horse  Heaven  Land.  There  we 
would  have  a  siphon  40  or  50  miles  in  length  and  operating  under  a  head  of  300  to  800 
feet;  that  again  costing  much  more  than  the  estimates  in  existence  for  watering  Horse 
Heaven  from  the  Mount  Adams  region. 

Mr.  RAKER.  So  that  I  may  get  this  clearly  in  the  record — and  we  do  not  seem  to 
quite  get  together— all  of  the  estimates  as  to  Idaho  and  Montana  for  all  the  land  that 
could  possibly  be  irrigated  in  the  future,  you  think  could  be  provided  for?  Is  that  the 
theory0 

Mr.  GOODXER.  It  has  been  provided  for  in  our  storage  requirements  and  cost  esti- 
mates. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  would  take  care  of  all  the  land  that  might  hereafter  come  in  from 
Montana? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BAKER.  And  the  same  is  true  of  Idaho? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes,  sir.  These  two  lakes  lie  in  extremely  deep  depressions.  They 
are  the  tail  end,  you  might  say,  of  what  were  once  lakes  of  enormous  size.  It  is  only  the 
areas  within  the  original  lake  basins  that  can  possibly  be  irrigated  from  there.  To  get 
the  water  from  the  Flathead  Lake,  for  instance,  on  to  the  lands  in  Central  Montana, 
which  are  lower,  would  require  perhaps  a  150  mile  tunnel. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  too  long. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Or  pumping  over  the  Bitter  Root  Range,  neither  of  which  engineers 
consider  feasible  under  modern  conditions. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  drove  over  that  range  this  summer  and  I  rule  it  out. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Now  I  might  say  there  that  both  our  State  Commission  and  the 
Federal  Power  Board  officially  requested  the  proper  authorities,  the  Governors,  and 
the  State  engineers,  of  Montana  and  Idaho,  to  furnish  the  Federal  Power  Commission 
with  maps  and  detailed  data  as  to  every  possbile  use  that  could  be  made  of  the  waters 
of  those  lakes,  and  they  have  done  that  over  their  signatures  and  we  have  them  in  the 
file.  They  are  also  in  the  Federal  Power  Commission's  files  now,  and  it  is  granted  with- 
out question  that  the  extreme  area  and  the  maximum  horsepower  which  they  think  the 
future  might  develop  would  be  taken  care  of. 

From  the  Federal  standpoint  might  I  say  that  developing  the  area  in  Washington 
and  the  power  in  Washington,  and  the  area  here  and  the  power  here  [indicating 
Montana]  is  one  project.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  Federal  Government  should 
take  on  this  one — Washington — and  leave  these  in  Montana  alone  [indicating I.  1 
know  the  Columbia  Basin  project  estimates  cover  any  water  that  can  be  used  anywhere 
for  irrigation  or  power  out  of  that  watershed. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  there  power  applications  on  file  now  for  the  Flathead  and  Pend 
Oreille? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes;  on  the  Flathead.     There  is  one  on  the  lower  Pend  Oreille  also. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  they  are  held  up? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  had,  just  before  I  left  Olympia,  a  communication  from  the 
executive  secretary  of  the  power  commission  to  the  effect  that  unless  we  showed 
further  objections  within  a  period  of  30  days  they  would  grant  certain  power  appli- 
cations in  Montana  upon  the  basis  stated,  that  basis  containing  a  reservation  that 
6,000  second-feet  should  be  a  minimum  regulated  flow  out  of  the  stream,  except 


26  COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

where  the  stream  naturally  would  flow  less  than  that,  which  is  in  the  middle  of  winter 
when  we  are  not  irrigating  and  not  interested,  and  if  they  put  that  development  in 
and  regulate  the  flow  to  6,000  second-feet  we  will  forget  Flathead  so  far  as  irrigating 
this  area  is  concerned.  That  will  give  a  regulated  flow  of  6,000  second-feet  on  down 
the  stream,  so  that  the  surplus  between  6,000  and  the  20.000 — and  we  only  need  20.000 
for  about  six  weeks— we  then  can  draw  from  Pend  Oreille. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  to  put  it  in  this  language,  you  have  taken  every  effort 
you  can  up  to  the  present  time  under  the  law.  State  and  Federal— it  applies  to  the 
State  of  Washington  and  also  to  the  other  two  States  where  the  water  heads — to  get  a 
prior  valid  right  to  the  use  of  that  water. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir.  There  is  one  more  thing  we  have  done  which  I  did  not  men- 
tion. We  passed  at  the  last  legislature  in  Washington — and  Idaho  also  passed  at  our 
request — a  reciprocal  act  which  grants  the  right  to  either  State,  if  it  has  passed  the 
reciprocal  act,  to  come  into  the  other  State  and  take  water  across  the  boundary.  In 
other  words,  Idaho  or  Washington  now  have  in  effect  a  law  granting  to  either  State 
the  same  right  as  an  individual  to  take  water  and  to  take  it  over  the  State  boundary. 

Montana  has  not  passed  that  act. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  If  the  Montana  Legislature  were  to  pass  such  an  act,  then  there 
would  be  no  necessity  for  an  interstate  treaty  or  compact  such  as  has  just  been  nego- 
tiated with  respect  the  Colorado  River? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  None  at  all.  Now  let  me  go  further.  This  is  not  trespassing  upon 
the  privileges  of  Montana  either.  Montana's  big  interest  lies  in  developing  the 
power.  The  regulation  of  that  lake  will  give  nearly  a  million  horsepower  between 
the  outlet  of  Flathead  Lake  and  the  Idaho  boundary  that  can  be  developed  in  Mon- 
tana. Their  big  interest  is  in  power,  and  sooner  or  later  the  power  will  be  developed. 
Supposing  they  should  block  us  for  10  years  in  putting  our  development  in  there: 
we  could  supply  our  first  10  years'  demand  from  these  lakes  Pend  Oreille  and  Priest, 
and  the  power  development  alone  there  at  Flathead  would  give  us  the  regulation  we 
want,  even  assuming  the  most  adverse  sentiment  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is,  if  the  present  applicants  and  those  that  might  come  develop 
all  the  water  that  comes  from  Flathead  Lake,  that  comes  into  the  Pend  Oreille,  it 
would  only  add  to  the  development  that  would  affect  your  people  beneficially. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir;  the  power  company  would  stand  the  cost,  instead  of  the 
land.  Not  only  that,  but  it  is  possible  for  maximum  power  development  to  regu- 
late for  much  more  than  6,000  second  feet  flow.  They  can  regulate  the  Flathead  for  a 
lot  more  than  that  if  power  demands  justify  it,  but  if  they  will  only  put  6,000  in 
which  the  Power  Commission  is  recommending  in  the  present  permits,  that  is  all  we 
are  asking  for.  So  far  as  irrigation  is  concerned,  that  takes  care  of  us. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  When  you  make  the  statement  that  you  have  made  preparation 
for  taking  care  of  Montana  and  Idaho,  you  are  contemplating  impounding  water  in 
addition  to  what  General  Goethals  pointed  out  there  at  the  dams  where  water  will 
be  supplied  by  gravity? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  You  do  not  confine  yourself  to  that  project? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Oh,  no;  but  we  have  done  this:  We  have  taken  for  computation  all 
of  the  flow  into  the  Flathead  Lake  and  we  have  subtracted  from  that  the  water  ade- 
quate for  all  these  lands  north  of  Flathead;  then  we  have  based  our  storage  and  our 
demands  upon  what  is  left. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  The  reason  that  I  asked  that  question  is  that  you  stated  it  would 
only  supply  1,750,000  acres — the  dam  that  he  pointed  out  there  on  the  right. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  was  not  quite  clearly  put. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  say  he  stated  that. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  all  we  contemplate  putting  in,  but  in  figuring 

Mr.  SUMMERS  (interposing).  But  you  have  other  places  through  the  project  where 
other  storage  that  would  be  secondary  would  be  provided  along  through  the  project? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  is  what  I  was  trying  to  get  at,  when  you  made  the  statement 
that  you  had  made  provisions  for  taking  care  of  Montana  and  Idaho. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  After  we  have  subtracted  that  total  possible  use  of  the  water,  we 
figure  that  we  have  an  ample  supply  left. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  high  do  you  contemplate  raising  Lake  Pend  Oreille? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Lake  Pend  Oreille  would  be  raised  from  an  average  water  surface 
of  about  2,054  to  an  extreme  maximum  of  2,065  feet  above  sea  level. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  I  mean  how  many  feet? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Fourteen  feet  maximum,  above  low  water. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  damage  would  that  do? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  27 

Mr.  GOODXER.  That  is  8  feet  below  the  high-water  mark. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  What  damage  would  that  do  to  the  city  of  Sand  Point? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Xone.  I  personally  directed  the  surveys  at  Sand  Point  and  met 
with  the  mill  owners  there,  the  sawmill  men,  members  of  the  city  council  and  the 
city  clubs,  and  they  agreed  that  any  regulation  holding  the  water  between  2,060  and 
2,065  will  be  of  benefit  to  them:  that  even  a  possible  2,067  would  not  do  them  seri- 
ous damage,  but  our  maximum  contemplates  2,065. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Government  would  not  be  called  upon  to  pay  any  damages 
on  account  of  overflowed  land  around  Lake  Pend  Oreille,  so  i'ar  as  the  city  of  Sand 
Point  is  concerned? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No;  we  estimated  every  lot,  every  building,  mapped  every  build- 
ing and  every  structure  that  will  be  affected  and  the  cost  to  replace  it,  and  our  total 
damages  around  the  lake  are  in  the  neighborhood  of  $1,000,000.  Now  for  storage 
of  one  and  one-half  million  acre-feet,  that  is  very  cheap  storage. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Now  tell  us  about  the  dam  at  Newport  and  the  size  of  the  main 
canal. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  At  Albany  Falls,  a  mile  or  so  east  of  Newport,  there  exists  a  natural 
waterfall  of  9  feet.  There  are  very  huge  rock  outcrops  there,  and  we  propose  to  put 
in  four  or  five  concrete  piers  and  put  in  removable  or  rising  iron  gates,  of  course  con- 
crete protected,  raising  the  water  there  to  an  elevation  not  exceeding  2,065.  That 
elevation  would  back  the  water  18  miles  up  the  river  and  into  the  lake,  that  one  dam 
control.  During  a  flood  period,  or  when  running  off  log  booms,  or  anything  of  that 
kind,  we  have  provisions  for  opening  one  or  more  of  those  gates  and  shooting  through 
whatever  it  is  necessary  to  pass.  Then,  just  above  the  dam,  taking  out  of  the  lake 
directly,  we  drive  a  3-mile  tunnel  from  this  point  across  into  the  Little  Spokane 
River  watershed . 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Wouldn't  you  have  your  dams  in  durinjg  the  flood  period? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  would  raise  the  gates,  leaving  the  river  channel  of  larger  capacity 
than  it  is  now,  until  after  the  natural  flood  had  allowed  the  lake  to  drop  to  the  eleva- 
tion at  which  we  want  to  hold  it.  That  would  avoid  any  question  in  case  of  extreme 
flood  of  our  dam  being  responsible  for  it.  There  are  floods  there  which  go  way  above 
our  contemplated  storage. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  When  will  you  withhold  the  water? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  As  soon  as  the  lake — the  lake  is  here,  at  high  water  [indicating]; 
as  the  flood  goes  down  it  reaches  this  point,  which  is  2,065.  At  that  point  we  close 
our  gates  and  prevent  further  dropping. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  zero? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  zero,  so  far  as  the  top  of  our  storage  is  concerned.  We  count 
from  there  down. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  that  the  low  water  in  the  lake? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No;  that  is  2,065.  Low  water  runs  in  the  neighborhood  of  2,048  to 
2,050.  You  see,  before  it  gets  to  low  water  we  close  the  gates  and  hold  in  there  the 
amount  needed.  If  we  should  close  the  gates  during  extreme  flood  it  would  result 
in  making  the  flood  crest  higher  yet  and  would  subject  us  to  damage,  of  course — to 
paying  damages. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  When  you  build  this  tunnel  how  big  is  the  main  canal? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  After  we  leave  the  tunnel — the  tunnel,  by  the  way,  is  twin  bore, 
32  feet  in  diameter  and  29  feet  depth  of  water,  horseshoe  shape — we  come  then  to  the 
canal.  In  that  section  we  drop  into  a  rather  steep  grade  canal.  The  water  runs  60 
feet  wide  on  top  and  29  feet  deep.  That  canal  is  lined  with  solid  concrete,  steel 
reinforced,  not  only  for  strength  but  to  stand  expansion  or  contraction  due  to  tem- 
perature changes,  so  that  it  will  not  be  damaged  by  winter. 

After  we  get  down  to  the  project  where  the  lands  are  flatter,  we  change  the  section 
of  the  canal  and  carry  the  water  20  feet  deep  and  on  a  flatter  slope,  running  the  canal 
120  feet  wide. 

The  CHAIRMAN-.  What  is  the  length  of  the  tunnel? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  tunnels  aggregate  about  34  miles.  The  longest  individual 
tunnel  is  made  up  by  building  eight  short  sections,  each  less  than  2  miles,  connecting 
with  each  other  to  get  an  aggregate  underground  length  of  15J  miles.  That  takes  us 
through  the  governing  ridge  between  the  Spokane  watershed  and  the  lands  to  be 
watered. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  in  contemplating  the  expense  in  building  the  tunnels,  did 
you  have  in  mind  any  new  device  of  building  tunnels,  or  do  you  expect  to  blast  out  in 
the  old-fashioned  way? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Not  quire  in  the  old-fashioned  way.  We  sent  Mr.  Turner,  who  was 
then  our  chief  engineer,  on  a  long  trip  through  the  East.  He  went  to  the  Shandaken 


28  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

tunnel  that  was  built  for  the  New  York  water  supply;  he  went  to  the  Hetch  Hetchyv 
which  was  built  for  the  San  Francisco  water  supply,  and  other  similar  works;  he  found 
their  methods,  and  then  we  got  Mr.  A.  C.  Dennis,  who  is  one  of  the  greatest  tunnel  men 
in  this  country,  and  paid  him  as  a  contractor,  to  estimate  the  camps,  equipment,  and 
cost  of  building  those  tunnels.  His  figures  checked  almost  identically  with  ours. 

The  method  is  very  simple,  using  ordinary  steam  shovels,  electric  or  air  operated, 
and  standard-gauge  railroad  trains — ordinary,  usual  methods,  but  on  a  very  large  scale. 
The  tunnels  are  large  enough  so  that  you  can  carry  double  tracks  in  them,  standard- 
gauge  tracks,  which  makes  for  very  cheap  operation. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  How  about  secondary  storage  on  the  project? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  You  notice  in  the  first  place  the  country  along  the  line  lies  at  an 
elevation  of  1,800  feet.  Our  canal  starts  distributing  at  1,800  and  drops  uniformly  to- 
the  southwest  till  we  get  to  500  feet  here  [indicating].  That  country  is  a  lake  bed  and 
has  also  been  glaciated,  giving  us  a  very  large  number  of  deep  coulees  or  canyons 
crossing  it,  running  southwest  and  northeast.  Our  canals  come  out  on  the  ridges. 
At  a  number  of  places  we  have  located  in  those  canyons  possible  dam  and  reservoir 
sites,  aggregating  a  very  large  amount  of  storage.  By  running  the  canals  outside  of 
the  irrigation  season  we  can  fill  these  reservoirs  thus  creating  what  we  call ' :  secondary 
storage"  within  the  project.  In  the  next  season  we  can  draw  from  those  reservoirs 
and  thus  take  care  of  our  peak  demands  for  water.  By  doing  that  our  main  canal 
throughout  does  not  need  to  be  so  large  to  handle  the  peak  demand.  Those  studies, 
however,  have  not  been  completed  and  our  main  canal  and  all  our  structures  were 
estimated  and  based  upon  handling  the  peak  demand. 

Twenty  or  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  dollars  could  well  be  spent  upon  further 
studies  of  that  secondary  storage,  and  undoubtedly  will  cut  ten  or  fifteen  million 
dollars  off  from  the  cost  of  the  major  work. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  The  pumping  that  is  to  be  done  on  the  project  areas  shown  in  pink  is 
not  from  the  secondary  storage  works  but  from  the  canals. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  As  the  canals  come  down  these  ridges  we  find  the  fall  steeper  than 
we  can  properly  control  with  canals.  At  25  different  points  we  have  to  introduce 
drops.  Some  of  those  drops  are  as  much  as  50  or  60  feet  and  dropping  two  or  three 
thousand  second-feet  of  water.  That  gives  us  a  possible  power  development  at  the 
drops  in  the  distributing  canals  exceeding  180,000  horsepower.  The  logical  market 
for  that  horsepower  is  to  hitch  it  to  pumps  and  pump  on  to  these  areas  which  are 
above  the  canals. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  That  pumping  will  be  done  from  the  canals? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  will  be  done  under  either  of  the  alternate  developments, 
either  primary  pumping  or  the  gravity  supply.  Either  way  would  have  the  same 
secondary  pumping  to  reach  these  lands,  developing  power  from  the  drops,  with  this 
difference,  that  the  canal  from  the  primary  pumping  plant,  the  Columbia  Dam 
project,  does  not  come  through  within  400  feet  as  high  an  elevation  as  from  the  gravity 
plan,  and  cuts  our  power  for  secondary  purposes  about  in  half. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  blue  there  on  the  map  on  the  left  is  the  1,750,000  acres? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  in  the  pink  there  are  400,000  acres? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  About  400,000. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  much  of  that  land  is  in  private  ownership  now? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Including  the  railroad  lands,  about  90  per  cent  of  it  is  in  private 
ownership.  The  railroad  lands,  however,  have  all  been  virtually  promised  to  the 
State  at  $5  an  acre. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  about  10  per  cent  is  in  public  lands? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  State  and  Federal  lands;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Have  you  had  any  negotiations  with  the  owners  of  the  lands  to  know 
whether  they  will  come  in  under  a  project,  and  if  so,  how?  What  have  you  done 
along  that  line?  Do  you  contemplate  an  irrigation  district,  or  what? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That,  of  course,  is  a  matter  for  Congress  to  determine,  what  the 
form  shall  be.  It  is  the  State's  recommendation,  so  far  as  it  goes,  that  the  entire 
area  shall  be  formed  into  a  State  irrigation  district  under  a  special  law. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  do  you  know  that  the  private  land  owners  will  do? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  have  approached— I  will  not  say  all  of  the  owners,  but  a  very 
large  percentage  of  them,  either  personally  or  by  correspondence;  we  know  not  only 
that  they  are  willing  to  come  into  whatever  form  of  organization  is  recommended  by 
the  people  who  put  up  the  money,  the  State  or  Federal  Government,  but  they  that 
are  willing  to  pledge  themselves  to  put  a  large  part  of  it  into  development  immediately. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Now  you  are  familiar  with  the  reclamation  law  which  requires  the 
landowner  to  dispose  of  all  of  his  surplus  over  the  farm  unit  at  a  price  to  be  fixed  by 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Have  you  taken  that  up? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  29 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  in  anticipation  of  that,  we  have  done  this:  We  had  our  legis- 
lature pass — we  had  the  people — vote  on  it,  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  passed  upon 
and  declared  valid  a  constitutional  amendment  in  the  State  of  Washington  which  is 
now  part  of  our  constitution,  under  which  the  State  itself,  or  pur  division  of  the  State, 
has  authority  to  condemn,  if  the  owner  does  not  voluntarily  surrender,  all  excess 
lands  over  the  unit  set  in  any  given  project.  We  are  able  to  use  that  power  in  the 
smaller  projects  now. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Well,  then,  will  the  private  landowner  voluntarily  dispose  of  his  land 
under  the  reclamation  law? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  We  anticipate  from  our  correspondence  and  personal  acquaintance — 
and  I  know  a  whole  lot  of  them — that  80  per  cent  of  those  owners  will  be  glad  to  at 
once  sign  a  contract  cutting  their  own  holdings  to  40  acres,  and  allowing  the  rest  to  be 
disposed  of  at  whatever  figure  the  authorities  in  charge  set  as  a  fair  figure. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  40  acres  a  fair  farm  unit? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  too  big  in  the  long  run,  but  it  can  be  handled  under  wheat. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  a  family  can  make  a  living  off  of  40  acres  of 
wheat  on  that  kind  of  land? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  No;  but  I  say  that  during  the  first  two  or  three  years,  until  they  get 
their  land  in  shape  for  intensive  cultivation,  they  will  put  it  into  wheat  and  get  some- 
thing off  of  it,  whereas  now  they  are  getting  nothing. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  It  seems  to  me  that  40  acres  is  too  small  an  area  for  a  farm  unit  in  that 
country.  What  is  the  length  of  your  growing  season? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Two  hundred  and  fourteen  days. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  What  would  you  produce  on  that  land? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  All  diversified  crops  that  are  grown  now  in  the  Yakima  project. 
And  let  me  correct  a  statement  made  this  morning 

Mr.  HUDSPETH  (interposing).    That  is,  alfalfa  and  corn? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Alfalfa,  corn,  and  cattle  and  truck. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Is  40  acres  sufficient  for  a  family  there? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  It  is  too  much.    A  man  can't  handle  it  properly. 

Now,  the  statement  was  made  that  Yakima  owes  its  success  to  fruit.  Less  than  20 
per  cent  of  the  Federal  project  in  Yakima  is  in  fruit. 

The  CHAIRMAX.  What  was  that  statement? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Less  than  20  per  cent  of  the  area  in  the  Federal  project  in  Yakima 
IB  in  fruit.  Eighty  per  cent  of  it  is  diversified  fanning.  Of  course  it  is  true  that  half 
of  the  dollars  and  cents  produced  there  is  from  fruits,  but  the  fruit  growers  are  not  as 
prosperous  on  the  average  as  the  man  who  is  raising  corn  and  chickens  and  pigs  and 
doing  diversified  farming. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  has  a  dairy? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  My  experience  has  been  that  the  only  legitimate  way  to  figure  the 
success  of  an  irrigation  project  is  on  an  alfalfa  basis. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Certainly. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  Do  you  think  that  40  acres  in  alfalfa  with  dairy  cows  is  more  than  one 
family  could  properly  care  for? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  It  is  more  than  the  average  American  family  can  take  care  of  even 
if  they  have  children  to  do  the  milking. 

Mr.  RAKER.  They  would  not  all  have  dairy  cows.  You  can  not  take  a  place  like 
that  and  imagine  that  they  would  all  be  engaged  in  one  business. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  If  you  go  exclusively  into  truck  farming,  or  exclusively  into  fruit, 
there  is  not  a  market  for  all  of  it.  The  thing  that  makes  a  reclamation  project  success- 
ful is  the  alfalfa  field,  and  to  go  beyond  an  alfalfa  basis  is  risky.  Therefore,  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  ought  to  take  more  then  40  acres  of  land  under  this  project  to  support  a 
family,  because  on  the  project  where  I  live  in  Arizona,  the  average  holding  is  about 
38  acres  and  we  have  a  growing  season  that  is  three  months  longer  than  anywhere 
in  the  State  of  Washington.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  can  take  some  kind  of  a  crop 
off  the  ground  every  month  in  the  year  if  necessary. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  You  would  not  want  to  call  ours  a  short  growing  season,  I  think. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Not  214  days.     That  is  not  a  short  season. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Do  you  not  find  that  one  kind  of  crop  alone  is  detrimental  to  a  project, 
everybody  going  into  one  thing? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  There  is  no  question  about  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Diversified  farming  is  the  only  thing  that  will  bring  results. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Before  taking  up  the  State"  land  settlement  project,  which  is  also 
under  our  control,  we  made  investigation,  so  far  as  we  could  by  correspondence  and 
literature,  of  the  land  settlement  projects  and  irrigation  projects  of  the  entire  world. 
We  have  gotten  an  enormous  mass  of  data. accumulated  which  we  have  studied  and 


30  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

compiled  and  computed  over  and  over  again.  Our  decision  was  that  here  at  White 
Bluffs,  this  green  spot  [indicating],  which  the  State  is  now  developing  as  a  land 
settlement  project,  that  20  acres  was  the  largest  unit  we  could  give  any  man  and 
expect  him  to  successfully  and  intensively  cultivate  it,  and  we  are  going  ahead  on 
the  basis  of  20  acres,  and  they  are  making  good. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Isn't  it  a  fact  that  all  of  these  State  settlements  are  on  the  best  land  in 
the  State? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  I  do  not  consider  that  any  of  the  projects  now  under  State  control 
average  anywhere  near  the  average  of  the  lands  in  the  Columbia  Basin. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  I  am  just  wondering  if  it  has  not  been  the  best  land  in  the  State 
at  any  of  these  places  where  they  have  had  a  State  settlement. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Not  in  Washington,  by  any  means. 

Mr.  RAKER.  With  the  best  railroad  facilities,  with  town  facilities  close  by,  with 
water,  and  in  fact  everything  that  goes  to  make  up  a  community  if  it  is  properly 
applied. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  I  will  answer  that  in  this  way:  We  hope  if  we  are  lucky,  in  the  next 
five  or  six  years  to  make  our  White  Bluff  settlement  able  to  hold  up  its  head  along- 
side of  the  Yakima  development. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  size  of  the  farm  unit  on  Sunnyside? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Mr.  Beadle  could  answer  that,  perhaps.  " 

Mr.  BEADLE.  I  think  it  runs  between  40  and  50  acres,  but  I  do  not  carry  the  figures 
in  my  mind. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  far  is  this  settlement  you  speak  of,  of  the  soldiers,  from  the 
railroad? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  are  on  a  subline  of  the  Milwaukee,  which  sends  one  car  and 
engine  down  one  day  and  back  the  next.  We  are  45  miles  by  stage  from  Kennewick. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  answers  Judge  Raker's  question,  then,  that  the  most  suc- 
cessful projects  are  on  the  best  land  with  the  best  facilities. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  was  successful  farming  country  in  there? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  have  irrigated  it? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  divided  it  up,  and  most  of  these  people  have  something  else 
to  do  besides  fanning? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No,  our  State  law  required  us  to  take  and  put  them  on  absolutely 
raw  land.  We  wanted  to  put  a  project  over  here  [indicating]  and  the  Attorney  General 
ruled  that  because  that  land  had  been  broken  a  number  of  years  ago,  although  not  now 
cultivated,  it  did  not  come  within  the  State's  definition  of  raw  land,  and  we  have  to 
take  absolutely  sage  brush  land  and  put  the  boys  on  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  many  boys  have  you  there? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Thirty-five  at  present,  and  by  spring  we  will  have  58.  There  are 
58  tracts  there,  but  they  are  not  all  ready  for  settlement  yet. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  the  area  of  the  X.  P.  land? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Forty  thousand  acres,  about. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  arrangements  have  you  made  with  the  company? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Simply  a  letter  from  their  head  officials  saying  that  at  the  time  the 
project  was  ready  to  go  they  will  turn  that  over  to  the  controlling  authorities  at  $5  an 
acre. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Are  you  sure  that  your  drainage  costs  will  not  be  great? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  for  this  reason:  According  to  the  map  which  we  have  in  the 
general-project  report,  showing  the  drainage  lines,  which  have  already  been  surveyed, 
we  have  got  our  lines  surveyed  where  the  drains  will  come  between  every  pair  of 
canals,  and  we  have  got  15,000  miles  of  canals  surveyed.  We  have  every  drainage 
lateral  located  now  as  nearly  as  it  can  be  in  advance  of  the  water.  We  have  found  in 
the  Quincy  Valley,  which  is  flat,  that  we  are  going  to  have  to  construct  drainage  ditches. 
We  have  surveyed  them  and  located  them  and  know  what  it  is  going  to  cost  to  put  the 
in.  We  find  here  north  of  Pasco  that  there  is  a  blind  draw  in  there  where  water  will 
accumulate.  We  have  figured  on  opening  that  up.  Everywhere  on  the  project  that 
drainage  is  necessary  as  near  as  can  be  predicted  in  advance  we  have  worked  out  just 
what  should  be  done. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  It  has  been  the  situation  on  practically  every  irrigation  project 
heretofore  undertaken  that  the  cost  of  drainage  has  been  underestimated. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes;  and  that  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  until  very  recently  we 
had  not  had  projects  in  operation  long  enough  to  get  a  basis  upon  which  to  predict 
our  drainage  in  advance  of  the  need  arising;  now  we  have  gotten  that  data,  and  the 
engineers  of  the  Reclamation  Service  and  engineers  in  private  business  know  to-day 
about  what  different  soils  and  different  subsoil  conditions  will  create  in  the  way  of 


COLUMBIA  BASIN    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  31 

needing  drainage,  and  when  we  figure  a  project  to-day  all  of  our  State  projects,  new 
ones— we  have  20  of  them  under  way  now— in  all  of  those  we  go  ahead  and  predict 
our  drainage  and  costs  just  as  accurately  and  as  far  in  advance  as  we  do  where  the 
canals  are  going  in  to  bring  the  water  in.  Furthermore,  we  are  going  to  attempt  to 
get  the  legislature  in  pur  State  to  make  the  handling  of  drainage  a  compulsory  part 
of  the  duties  of  the  irrigation  district. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  It  ought  to  be. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Instead  of  having  separate  districts,  the  whole  water  problem  of 
the  district  should  be  under  one  control. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  Mr.  Pierce  doing  at  Priest  Rapids? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  He  is  drilling  a  possible  dam  site.  He  also  told  me  that  unless  he 
could  find  a  market  for  a  certain  large  block  of  horsepower  the  development  would 
probably  be  in  abeyance  for  some  time. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  this  soil  generally  a  sandy  soil? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  it,  red  sand  or  white? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  White.  This  entire  area,  extending  clear  up  the  Columbia  River 
and  over  into  the  Yakima  country  and  down  into  Oregon,  is  the  bed  of  what  geologists 
say  was  the  old  John  Day  Lake.  As  that  drained  out  it  left  a  uniform  sandy  silt 
over  practical!)7  the  entire  area. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Is  that  the  same  character  of  soil  as  they  have  around  Herrniston 
and  Umatilla? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  a  much  finer  grade  of  soil.  These  soils  have  been  reworked 
by  the  wind  and  by  the  lava  flows  which  have  come  in.  In  this  area  around  Pasco, 
near  Burbank  and  Umatilla  and  in  through  there,  they  have  a  very  coarse-grained 
soil,  with  very  little  fine  silt  in  it.  [Indicating  on  map.]  From  here  north,  up  the 
Yakima  and  up  the  Wenatchee,  we  have  a  very  fine  water-holding  silt. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Is  that  something  like  the  soil  between  Prosser  and  Ontario? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  have  been  across  that  country  from  Prosser  over  to  Erie. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  very  similar  to  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  many  State  land  settlements  do  you  have? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  At  this  time  we  have  just  one. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  that  land  had  been  settled  ahd  cultivated  before  you  opened 
your  project? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Areas  in  it  had,  but  not  the  areas  that  we  are  developing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  large  an  appropriation  have  you? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  have  spent $150,000  out  of  an  authorization  of  $300,000. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Are  these  ex-service  men  married  men? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Practically  all  of  them  are. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Did  they  come  in  with  any  means? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes.  We  require  them  to  show  sufficient  means  to  sustain  their 
necessary  living  expenses  for  one  year.  That  is  one  of  the  several  requirements. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  give  them  15  acres? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Twenty  acres. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Twenty  acres  with  a  barn  and  house  and  outbuildings? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  And  the  well  and  pump. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  they  have  to  pay  how  much  per  acre? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Their  total  cost,  depending  upon  the  type  of  house  they  choose — 
they  may  choose  from  several  types  and  they  may  also  choose  what  improvements 
they  want — the  cost  varies  from  $200  to  $500  per  acre.  If  they  want  us  to  go  in  and 
clear  the  land  and  plant  it  for  them,  we  get  close  to  $500  an  acre  debt  to  the  State. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  is  only  charged  actual  cost? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  he  pays  interest  at  4  per  cent  on  the  amount  advanced? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  a  pretty  good  start  for  anybody,  isn't  it? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  lots  better  than  my  father  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  he  is  paying  4  per  cent  on  $500-an-acre  land  he  has  to  raise 
crops  at  a  profit  of  $20  an  acre  to  meet  that  expense. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  the  limit. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Over  how  many  years  is  that  extended? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Twenty  years;  sooner  if  he  can  pay  it  off.  They  may  also  get 
deferred  interest  for  three  "years  in  case  of  certain  conditions,  like  sickness  in  the 
family  or  things  of  that  kind.  We  have  liberty  of  giving  them  deferred  payments 
on  the  interest. 

25410—22 3 


32  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Now,  one  more  point  which  perhaps  has  not  been  made  clear.  When  the  State 
started  this  work  we  knew  that  $100,000,  which  was  all  we  had  in  the  first  appro- 
priation, would  not  get  us  hardly  anywhere,  so  we  sent  out  broadcast  an  appeal  to 
all  agencies  possible  for  assistance.  The  different  railroads — there  are  five  of  them 
crossing  there— furnished  us  copies  or  the  originals  of  their  original  location  surveys 
and  their  la,nd  reconnaisance  maps.  The  numerous  mortgage  loan  companies  fur- 
.nished  us  with  their  original  data  in  an  enormous  mass.  The  State  University,  the 
State  college  at  Pullman,  and  the  Federal  Land  Bank,  and  various  other  agencies 
turned  over  to  us  not  only  their  records  but  loaned  us  men  without  expense.  So 
that  we  had  at  the  start,  before  we  had  spent  a  dollar,  better  than  $300.000  worth 
of  maps  and  records  in  our  vaults.  We  were  able  at  once  to  put  competent  engineers 
at  work  studying  and  analyzing  those  records.  We  made  a  paper  location  in  the 
office  from  all  those  maps  before  we  ever  went  into  the  field.  We  then  sent  men 
put  with  aneroid  barometers  and  checked  in  the  field  before  we  put  the  survey 
instruments  out,  instrument  parties,  of  course,  being  expensive.  As  a  result  of  that 
work,  out  of  1,200  miles  of  precise  location  lines,  "the  engineers'  precise  location, 
there  was  less  than  10  miles  that  had  to  be  rerun. 

By  methods  such  as  that;  by  the  absolute  presentation  to  us  from  everybody  who 
had  any  information  on  the  area,  we  figured,  and  frankly  acknowledged  to  the  people 
concerned,  that  the  State  has  had  better  than  half  a  million  dollars  worth  of  data 
placed  in  its  hands  on  that  project.  It  is  because  of  that  and  the  further  fact  that 
the  United  States  Geological  Survey  has  very  largely  made  the  topographic  maps 
of  that  area,  and  that  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service  has  a  lot  of  data  derived 
during  the  study  of  the  Big  Bend  project,  and  the  engineers  of  the  United  States 
Reclamation  Service  sat  right  in  and  worked  with  us  on  this  work,  that  we  have  been 
able  to  turn  out  a  report,  a  study,  which,  as  General  Goethals  says,  is  much  more 
complete  than  you  would  anticipate  with  the  actual  amount  of  State  money  we 
have  spent. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Did  you  have  the  benefit  of  a  soil  survey  by  the  Bureau  of  Soils? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  three  of  the  counties  have  been  mapped  and  the  soil  survey 
published.  It  covered  practically  the  entire  area,  all  except  one  little  corner  of  it . 
This  little  corner  here  [indicating]  has  not  been  covered;  the  rest  of  it  has. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Was  any  alkali  found  in  the  soil? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  There  was  only  one  place  in  the  entire  area  where  there  was  alkali 
found.  That  is  a  sink  hole  right  here  [indicating],  and  we  are  figuring  on  using  that 
sink  hole  as  one  of  our  waste  way  areas.  That  is  something  that  we  have  worked  out 
in  detail  on  all  of  the  project,  because  it  is  inevitable  that  on  cloudy  days  the  people 
will  shut  down  the  use  of  the  water,  or  when  an  occasional  sprinkle  comes  they  will 
shut  down  the  use  of  the  water,  and  we  have  studied  out  on  the  entire  project  wherever 
waste  will  take  place,  and  we  have  estimated  the  cost  of  discharging  that  water  to  the 
nearest  secondary  storage  or  to  the  river. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  That  is  all  rolling  land,  as  I  understand  it? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  rolling,  except  in  three  areas.  Quincy  Valley  is  flat  and 
Rattlesnake  is  flat.  Right  in  here  is  flat  [indicating],  and  Paradise  is  flat.  Those  are 
comparatively  small  areas.  Even  those  flats,  with  the  exception  of  Quincy,  have  a 
tilt  of  about  8  or  10  inches  to  the  mile,  which  is  sufficient  for  drainage.  Quincy  is  a 
basin,  and  we  have  to  dig  a  way  to  get  the  water  out. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  And  the  rest  of  the  project  would  be  irrigated  by  constructing  laterals 
from  the  main  canal  that  would  generally  follow  the  contour  lines  along  the  ridges? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  .Follow  the  ridges:  yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  know  the  minimum  flow  of  the  Columbia  at  the  junction  of 
the  Columbia  and  the  Snake? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  about  50,000  second-feet. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  is  50,000  second-feet  at  the  dam. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Well,  of  course,  it  is  a  little  less,  a  very  little  less,  than  that  at  Pasco. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  you  have  the  Deschutes  River  coming  in  and  the  John  Day. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir;  and  a  number  of  others. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  Deschutes  is  about  the  same  at  the  minimum  as  it  is  at  the 
maximum? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Because  it  has  no  fluctuation. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No;  that  is  only  a  few  thousand  feet  flow,  though. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  How  extensive  is  that  alkali  area  to  which  you  referred? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  is  about  a  mile  square.  It  is  in  the  bottom  of  a  deep  depression. 
It  represents  the  drainage  from  perhaps  200  miles  square,  this  area  in  here  [indicating] . 
It  all  comes  into  that  trap.  There  is  no  outlet  to  it.  Some  years  there  will  be  20  feet 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  33 

of  water  there  and  some  years  none,  and  when  there  is  none  yon  can  see  the  alkali 
That  represnets  a  drainage,  as  I  say,  of  a  couple  of  hundred  square  miles. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  does  not  require  a  very  large  storage  basin. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  I  made  one  trip,  gentlemen,  out  here  from  Connell  to  Othello  and 
up  to  Quincy,  and  on  that  trip  we  passed  16  abandoned  schoolhouses.  Now.  for  an 
American  community  to  give  up  its  schoolhouses  things  must  be  in  a  bad  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  the  occasion  for  that?    What  is  the  matter?. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  There  is  not  a  soul  left  in  that  country. 

Mr.  RAKER.  For  what  reason? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Ten  or  fifteen  years  ago  we  had  a  cycle  of  abnormal  rainfall;  at  the 
same  time  we  had  an  abnormal  land  rush.  People  came  in  and  homesteaded  that 
country  and  the  land  was  practically  all  taken.  They  survived  anywhere  from  1 
to  10  years.  Last  year  I  was  in  this  area  of  280.000  acres  and  there  were  only  two 
men  left  there,  and  one  of  them  said:  "I  am  going  this  winter,  because  I  am  eating 
the  last  of  my  chickens  now."  That  area  has  been  abandoned  because  they  can  not 
grow  any  crop  on  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  that  riases  the  question:  Where  are  these  people  and  are  they 
still  claiming  title  to  this  land? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  They  are  remarkably  well  keeping  up  their  taxes  on  the  land.  A 
large  part  of  the  owners  are  working  in  industrial  centers  here,  in  the  logging  mills  in 
the  Grays  Harbor  country,  and  we  have  been  able  to  reach  a  large  part  of  them  by 
correspondence.  I  have  been  down  there  and  talked  to  lots  of  them,  and  they  are 
willing  to  come  back  there  and  start  with  the  cheapest  crop  they  can  get  in  for  a  year 
or  two,  which  is  wheat.  Now  with  water  they  are  good  for  50  or  60  bushels  of  wheat 
to  the  acre,  and  in  most  years  wheat  is  a  pretty  good  crop.  Once  in  a  while,  you  know, 
they  do  not  get  a  very  good  price  for  it,  but  take  it  year  in  and  year  out  it  is  a  pretty 
good  crop,  and  by  gradually  switching  over  a  few  acres  a  year  from  what  they  have 
got  in  wheat  into  more  intensive  cultivation,  we  figure  that  it  will  be  a  comparatively 
simple  matter  for  the  bulk  of  those  owners  to  bring  their  land  under  intensive  culti- 
vation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  anyone  buying  up  this  land  in  large  tracts,  buying  out  these  owners? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Not  that  we  know  of.  and  we  immediately  would  try  to  put  a  stop 
to  it  if  we  did  know  it. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  You  are  familiar  with  the  other  irrigation  in  the  locality  of  the  Colum- 
bia Basin  project? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  How  many  tons  of  alfalfa  will  they  raise  annually? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  The  average  farmer  will  raise  five  or  six  tons  but  the  good  farmer 
will  raise  8  tons.  Taking  them  all  alike,  we  find  that  on  the  Yakima  project,  which 
includes  areas  that  were  being  hogged  and  a  lot  of  land  that  was  partially  water  logged, 
they  raise  3.3  tons  per  acre.  We  sent  a  man  on  the  Yakima  project,  after  that  figure 
was  published,  to  find  out  why  the  yield  was  so  low,  and  found  that  the  farmers  who 
are  real  farmers  on  the  Yakima  project  will  raise  from  five  to  eight  tons.  We  found 
one  authentic  record  of  9  tons  per  acre  on  a  20-acre  field. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  is  the  average  price  for  alfalfa? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Two  weeks  ago  they  were  getting  $20  a  ton  in  the  field. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  Where  was  that? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  In  the  lower  Yakima. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  nearly  twice  as  much  as  we  are  getting  in  Idaho. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  I  surmise  we  have  more  feeders  there  than  you  have. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  It  is  a  very  superior  alfalfa  that  is  raised  in  that  latitude. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  It  would  not  be  fair  to  the  other  districts  to  claim  that,  and  I  do 
not  think  it  is  noticeably  different. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  have  heard  of  the  comparison  between  alfalfa  raised  in  a  cold 
climate  and  in  a  warm  climate? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  And  that  it  has  more  nutrition  in  it? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  I  believe  that  is  largely  a  myth. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Of  course,  gentlemen,  I  could  take  two  or  three  hours  in  discussing 
the  points  I  have  not  yet  touched,  but  unless  you  ask  questions  I  assume  they  are 
matters  of  no  particular  interest. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  have  finished  your  general  statement  we  will  adjourn  until 
to-morrow  morning  at  10.30  o'clock,  and  in  the  meantime  if  you  have  something  else 
to  submit  you  may  present  it. 

Thereupon  the  committee  adjourned  to  meet  Thursday,  December  7,  1922.  at 
10.30  o'clock  a.  m. 


34  COLUMBIA   BASIN    IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

COMMITTEE  ox  IRRIGATION  OF  ARID  LANDS, 

HorsE  OF  REPRESENTATIVE. 

Thursday,  December  7,  7.9,'.'. 

The  committee  met  at  10.30  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Addison  T.  Smith  (chairman) 
presiding. 

There  were  present  before  the  committee:  Hon.  J.  Stanley  Webster,  a  Representa- 
tive in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Washington;  Mr.  Francis  M.  Good\vin,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  the  Interior;  Mr.  Morris  Bien,  acting  director  of  reclamation:  Mr.  Ivan  E. 
Goodner,  chief  engineer,  Columbia  Basin  survey:  Mr.  Fred  A.  Adams,  supervisor 
Columbia  Basin  survey,  and  Mr.  J.  A.  Ford,  Columbia  Basin  League,  State  of  Wash- 
ington. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  be  in  order. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr.  Goodner  is  here  this  morning.  Has  any  member 
of  the  committee  thought  of  anything  over  night  that  they  want  to  ask  him  about 
further?  If  not,  we  will  call  Mr.  Fred  Adams,  supervisor  of  the  Columbia  Basin  under 
the  Department  of  Conservation  and  Development  of  the  State  of  Washington. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anyone  present  who  wishes  to  ask  Mr.  Goodner  any  ques- 
tions following  his  testimony  of  yesterday?  If  not,  Mr.  Adams  will  address  the  com- 
mittee. 

STATEMENT   OF   MB.   FRED    A.    ADAMS,    SUPERVISOR    COLUMBIA 
BASIN   SURVEY,    STATE   OF  WASHINGTON. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  my  name  is  Fred  A. 
Adams.  I  am  supervisor  of  the  the  Columbia  Basin  project  under  the  Department  of 
Conservation  and  Development  of  the  State  of  Washington.  I  have  been  connected 
with  the  Columbia  Basin  project  almost  from  its  inception. 

This  project  originated  with  the  people  of  the  State  of  Washington  before  it  was 
taken  to  the  State  legislature.  It  was  originated  because  we  knew  in  the  Pacific 
Northwest  that  practically  all  agricultural  lands  capable  of  development  were  ex- 
hausted as  far  as  homestead  entries  were  concerned.  The  only  available  lands  left 
for  agricultural  development  were  arid  lands,  much  of  which  lay  within  this  great 
Columbia  Basin  plateau  or  within  the  big  bend  of  the  Columbia  River.  There  was 
felt  that  an  inventory  of  our  lands  was  necessary.  Through  chambers  of  commerce, 
county  commissioners,  city  commissioners,  and  the  people  on  the  project  itself,  this 
request  for  an  inventory  was  made  to  the  legislature.  To  determine  what  the  inven- 
tory of  the  State  was  with  regard  to  its  arid  lands,  the  legislature  appropriated  the  first 
$100,000  for  a  preliminary  survey. 

When  the  proposal  was  placed  before  the  legislature  it  was  admitted  that  the  pro- 
ponents did  not  know  whether  the  Columbia  Basin  project  was  feasible  or  not.  It  was 
realized.'however,  that  this  great  basin  area  was  a  liability  to  the  Pacific  Northwest, 
and  unless  there  was  some  means  of  getting  water  on  it,  it  would  continue  to  be  a 
liability. 

After  four  years  of  intensive  investigation,  as  far  as  our  means  permitted,  we,  in 
our  own  minds  at  least,  have  determined  that  we  have  one  of  the  greatest  potential 
assets  in  the  Pacific  Northwest.  We  believe  it  is  a  potential  asset  for  this  reason: 
Our  timber  resources  are  being  rapidly  depleted;  with  each  ton  of  ore  taken  from  our 
mines  an  asset  is  being  depleted.  But  this  project  is  one  resource  that  will  create 
economic  stability  with  surrounding  States  and  with  the  rest  of  the  United  States. 

This  project,  as  General  Goethals  and  Mr.  Goodner  and  Mr.  Goodwin  told  you 
yesterday,  represents  approximately  3,000,000  acres  of  land.  We  believe  that  within 
the  area  we  can  irrigate  approximately  2,000,000  acres  of  land.  On  the  assumption 
that  there  are  only  about  20,000,000  acres  in  the  entire  Wrest  which  can  be  reclaimed 
by  the  appl  ication  of  water — and  of  course  you  all  know  that  that  is  not  the  extent  of  the 
land  that  could  be  irrigated  if  more  water  was  available — water  being  the  controlling 
factor,  we  have  the  very  fine  situation  in  this  Pacific  Northwest  of  having  for  this  proj- 
ect, not  to  speak  of  power  development  that  will  be  incidental  to  it,  three  times  the 
quantity  of  water  necessary  for  irrigation. 

It  would  tire  you,  and  it  would  be  useless  for  me  to  go  into  great  detail  about  the 
economic  phases  of  the  Columbia  Basin  project.  Therefore,  I  am  only  going  to  touch 
here  and  there  on  some  of  the  things  that  you  might  be  interested  in  as  members  of 
this  committee.  As  a  matter  of  comparison  let  me  first  cite  the  Yakima  project,  to 
which  your  attention  was  called  yesterday. 

In  the  Yakima  Valley,  including  the  private  development  and  Federal  reclamation, 
there  are  approximately  300,000  acres  of  land .  That  300,000  acres  of  land  over  a  period 
of  five  years  has  produced  on  an  average  $34,000,000  in  new  wealth  annually. 


COLUMBIA  BASIX    IRRIGATION    PROJECT.  35 

.Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  far  is  that  from  the  Columbia  Basin? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  just  across  the  Columbia  River  here  [indicating  on  map). 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  I  mean  in  miles.     I  know  where  it  is  but  I  want  to  get  it  in  the  record. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  say  it  is  about  40  or  50  miles  from  the  Columbia  Basin,  or  from 
the  western  edge  of  the  Columbia  Basin,  to  the  Yakima  Valley  itself. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  What  is  the  market  value  of  land  on  the  Yakima? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  market  value  of  land  on  the  Yakima  under  diversification  ranges 
from  *2-50  to  S300  an  acre.  It  goes  from  that  up  to  $1,003  and  $1,200  for  very  inten- 
sively cultivated  fruit  land. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Just  what  do  you  mean  by  "diversification"? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  growing  of  alfalfa,  wheat,  live  stock,  not  specializing  in  fruit  or 
one  crop. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  that  the  present  market  value  you  have  given? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  the  present  market  value. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  was  much  higher  during  the  war,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes;  it  was  considerably  higher  than  that  during  the  war.  When  you 
go  north  from  the  Yakima  into  Wenatchee  you  find  tracts  that  are  valued  and  are 
sold  as  high  as  SI, 500  per  acre,  but  they,  too, 'are  specialized  fruit  tracts. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  far  is  Wenatchee  from  the  Columbia  Basin? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Wenatchee  is  north  here  [indicating].  I  should  say  25  or  30  miles 
north  of  the  project.  Bear  in  mind  that  the  Columbia  Basin  area  in  soil  and  climate 
is  equal  to  and  in  many  cases  superior  to  either  the  Wenatchee  or  the  Yakima  project. 
Bear  in  mind  also  that  it  is  not  our  expectation  and  not  the  expectation  of  the  State 
that  this  will  become  a  specialized  fruit  project. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Is  this  the  area,  the  Yakima?     [Indicating.] 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  the  entire  Yakima  Valley.  That  represents  about  100,000  acres 
of  the  United  States  reclamation  project.  [Indicating.] 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  is  what  you  were  talking  about? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Wlien  I  said  300,000  acres  I  was  taking  in  the  entire  Yakima  Valley. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Which  is  the  place  where  they  sell  it  for  $1,000  an  acre? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Various  places  where  it  is  verv  intensively  cultivated  as  to  fruit.  Prac- 
tically all  of  this  300,000  acres  is  really  a  diversified  farming  section,  but  there  are  very 
highly  developed  apple  orchards. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  your  market  value  based  upon  actual  sales  or  upon  estimates? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  They  are  based  largely  upon  sales:  the  going  prices  received  by  real 
estate  men  in  Seattle,  Tacoma,  Yakima  itself,  and  various  places  where  the  sales  are 
made. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  statement  was  made  yesterday  that  the  growing  season  in  the 
Columbia  River  Basin  was  longer  than  at  Yakima. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  About  two  weeks  longer,  on  an  average,  than  the  Yakima.  The  grow- 
ing season  is  about  217  days,  on  an  average. 

The  CHAIRMAN-.   Why  is  that? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  due  largely  to  the  fact  it  is  one  great  plane:  it  is  farther  away 
from  the  Cascade  Mountains;  is  not  subjected  to  cold  winds  in  the  early  spring  and  the 
late  fall ;  by  better  contour;  and  by  a  southwest  exposure  of  the  land. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  a  lower  altitude,  too,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Some  parts  of  it,  yes;  but  on  the  whole  I  would  say  that  it  is  about  equal. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Wouldn't  you  say  also,  Mr.  Adams,  that  warm  winds  from  the  Japan 
Current  which  come  up  to  the  Columbia  modify  the  climate? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  This  whole  area  is  subjected  to  the  southwest  winds. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  mean  wind  currents  from  the  Japan  Current. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  They  are  mild  winds  and  tend  to  warm  the  atmosphere. 

The  reason  this  whole  area  is  arid  is  because  the  mositure  strikii)g|the  great  Cascade 
Range,  a  very  high  range  in  the  western  part  of  the  State,  is  intercepted  [indicating), 
and  most  of  the  rainfall  is  west  of  the  mountains.  The  rain  clouds  are  uninfluenced  by 
the  warm  winds  that  go  up  from  this  overheated  great  plateau.  There  Is  not  sufficient 
cooling  to  condense  the  moisture,  and  it  goes  eastward  until  it  strikes  the  Bitter  Root 
Mountains.  The  moisture  is  then  precipitated  east  of  the  basin  area.  That  causes  the 
very  low  rainfall  upon  the  area  itself,  varying  from  6  to  10  or  12  inches. 

We  hope  and  expect  that  this  will  become  a  great  diversified  farming  area,  not  util- 
ized for  intensive  fruit  production,  because  we  believe  that  with  the  capital  invested 
and  the  more  immediate  return  to  the  farmer  his  returns  will  be  safer  and  more  assured 
over  a  long  period  of  years  than  if  he  specialized  in  fruit.  To  continue  the  comparison, 
if  this  300,000  acres  of  land  in  the  Yakima  produced  on  an  average  $34.000.000  per  year 
over  a  five-year  period,  the  Columbia  Basin  area,  all  things  being  equal,  would  over  a 
number  of  years  return  an  annual  wealth  to  the  Nation  of  approximately  $200,000.000 
a  year. 


36  COLUMBIA  BASEST   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  While  you  are  on  that  point,  Mr.  Adams,  what  have  you  to  say  in 
answer  in  opposition  to  the  statement  made  by  those  in  Minnesota  and  Iowa  that  we 
have  overproduction  now;  that  every  acre  added  to  the  tillable  land  would  merely 
meaii  that  much  more  competition?  I  side  absolutely  with  you;  I  want  to  see  the 
land  put  into  cultivation  over  the  country,  but  I  think  on  this  point,  when  you  speak 
of  the  amount  of  production  you  should  answer  that  criticism. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  will  be  very  glad  to  answer  that.  Mr.  Arentz.  In  the  first  place, 
under  normal  conditions,  as  those  who  have  gone  into  the  economic  phases  of  it  believe, 
this  situation  will  not  exist  very  long.  For  instance,  if  the  policy  of  restricted  pro- 
duction had  been  adopted  by  the  United  States  Government  shortly  after  the  Civil 
War,  and  our  agricultural  development  had  been  arrested  because  of  the  same  criti- 
cism that  was  made  at  that  time,  we  would  not  be  producing  the  great  quantities  of 
corn  and  the  great  quantities  of  wheat  that  we  produce  now;  in  fact,  we  would  not  be 
producing  enough  for  home  consumption,  not  to  speak  of  export;  and  if  that  policy 
had  been  adopted  by  the  Government  we  would  not  have  been  able  to  send  food  to 
our  allies  during  the  war.  I  think  as  a  consequence  there  would  have  been  a  con- 
siderable breakdown  so  far  as  food  was  concerned. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  policy  was  adopted  and  that  was  one  of  the  reasons  assigned  by 
Hugh  Cannon  for  vetoing  the  original  homestead  act,  which  Lincoln  afterwards 
approved. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes.  sir;  that  is  very  true.  That  argument  was  advanced  at  that 
time  and  very  strongly  urged  upon  the  Government. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Supposing  it  is  true  that  we  are  producing  too  much  and  that  we  are 
going  to  keep  on  at  it.  can  you  suggest  any  way  in  which  the  Government  could  take 
care  of  the  overproduction,  any  market  that  it  could  establish  or  secure  somewhere? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  will  take  our  eastern  markets  for  example — when  I  say  "our 
eastern  markets"  I  mean  our  far  eastern  markets — I  think  those  who  have  studied 
the  economic  trend  on  the  Pacific  Coast  realize  that  far  eastern  markets  are  developing 
very  rapidly.  That  is  shown  in  our  increased  quantity  of  shipments,  by  our  exports 
to  the  Orient.  That  permits  an  additional  outlet  for  many  of  our  products. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Have  you  familiarized  yourself  with  that  enough  so  that  you  can  say 
to  us  that  you  think  we  will  have  an  oriental  market  of  any  considerable  proportions 
for  our  agricultural  products? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  can  say  that  I  have  investigated  it  to  this  extent:  Figures  from  the 
Commerce  Department  show  increased  shipments  of  agricultural  products,  which 
indicate  a  tendency  for  wider  eastern  markets.  No  one  can  predict  very  far  into  the 
future  what  our  shipments  are  going  to  be,  but  I  say  that  that  tendency  is  now  mani- 
festing itself. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Of  course,  there  isn't  anybody  claiming  that  there  is  an  oversupply  of 
fruit,  is  there? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  main  objection  now  is  that  there  is  not  enough  transportation  to 
move  the  fruit  that  is  being  raised.  It  is  a  marketing  question;  it  is  not  wholly  a 
question  of  production  at  this  time. 

Furthermore,  answering  Mr.  Arentz 'a  question,  I  will  say  that  the  products  raised 
upon  these  diversified,  irrigated  areas  are  not  competing  with  the  products  of  the 
Middle  West.  For  instance,  take  alfalfa.  Alfalfa  is  being  used  largely  for  feeding 
livestock  in  the  western  area  and  is  shipped  to  markets  in  the  Middle  \Vest  and  the 
East  where  alfalfa  is  not  grown.  Alfalfa  is 'peculiarly  a  product  adaptable  to  irrigated 
areas.  The  same  is  true  of  sugar  beets.  They  are  largely,  with  the  exception  of  those 
grown  in  Minnesota  and  Michigan,  not  in  competition  with  other  products. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  there  is  more  alfalfa  grown  on  irrigated 
land  than  on  other  land? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Than  on  nonirrigated  land. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  That  is  an  actual  fact,  is  it? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir:  that  is  an  actual  fact.  As  to  sugar,  bear  in  mind  hat  we  are 
an  importing  Nation .  With  the  development  of  this  area  by  reclamation  and  the  grow- 
ing of  sugar  beets  we  would  tend  more  nearly  to  balance  sugar  production  and  consump- 
tion within  the  United  States. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  You  mean  there  is  more  alfalfa  grown  in  gross  or  per  acre  on  irrigated 
land? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  More  per  acre. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Oh,  well,  of  course;  but  you  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  is  more 
alfalfa  grown  on  irrigated  land  than  on  other  land,  do  yo.u? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  1  would  not  say  that,  because  I  have  not  looked  into  the  total  quanti- 
ties grown  on  other  lands. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Would  you  not  make  some  reference  to  the  natural  increase  in  popu- 
lation in  the  United  States  and  consequent  greater  consumption? 


COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  37 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  a  factor  that  I  was  getting  to,  Mr.  Summers.  If  we  take  the 
figures  of  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  showing  the  necessity  of  bringing  in  an 
additional  six  or  eight  million  acres  per  year  to  take  care  of  the  normal  increase  in 
population  for  the  next  30  years,  it  would  mean  that  such  areas  as  this  must  be  devel- 
oped in  a  comparatively  short  time  in  order  to  take  care  of  that  absolute  need. 

Mr.  AREN-TZ.  Don't  you  think,  Mr.  Adams,  that  your  best  argument — in  fact,  it  is 
the  best  argument  from  my  point  of  view — is  that  the  increase  in  population  on  the 
Pacific  coa«t  within  the  next  10  or  15  years  is  going  to  be  so  great  that  unless  we  do 
something  now  which  will  be  spread  over  a  lU-year  period  of  development  we  are 
going  to  be  lacking  in  sufficient  foodstuffs  to  supply  the  needs  of  the  Pacific  coast? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  that  is  true.  And  I  think  you  can  go  further  than  that  and  say, 
Mr.  Arentz,  that  in  our  11  arid  Western  States— that  is,  the  11  States  farthest 
toward  the  Pacific— we  have  a  population  at  the  present  time  of  a  little  less  than 
9,000,000;  whereas,  east  of  that  block  of  States  there  is  a  population  of  over  96,000,000. 
Many  of  that  96,000,000  will  be  glad  of  an  opportunity  to  settle  upon  land  that  they 
know  will  bring  a  return  much  greater  than  they  could  secure  upon  lands  in  the  humid 
regions  of  the  United  States.  For  instance,  the  United  States  Reclamation  Service 
shows  that  the  production  per  acre  per  year  is  twice  as  much  upon  these  irrigated 
tracts  as  it  is  in  the  humid  regions. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  that  true  as  to  crops  generally? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes.  sir;  that  is  true  as  to  crops  generally.  The  average  per  acre  is 
twice  as  much  upon  irrigated  lands. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Is  it  not  true  that  the  investment  is  so  much  greater  in  an  irrigated 
acre  that  really  the  percentage  of  profit  is  less  than  it  is  on  unirrigated  land? 

Mr.  ADAMS. 'No;  I  think  not.  If  you  base  it  upon  the  value  of  your  Iowa  lands 
and  other  lands  in  the  corn  States,  I  think  you  will  find  that  the  investment  is  not 
greater  upon  the  irrigated  land  per  acre  than  it  is  upon  those  high-priced  lands  in 
the  Middle  West. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  knew  a  very  large  farmer  on  the  Nile  who  did  not  irrigate  his  wheat 
crops,  and  he  told  me  that  he  could  make  more  money  per  acre  by  not  doing  it;  the 
natural  crop  was  good  enough  so  that  if  he  paid  for  his  water  for  irrigation  he  would 
not  make  as  much  as  he  would  if  he  had  raised  his  crop  without  it. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  cost  of  irrigation  would  enter  in  there,  too.  I  understand  that 
in  Egypt  water  rights  are  knocked  off  to  the  highest  bidder  year  by  year. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  increase  in  agricultural  land  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile  has  been  of 
tremendous  benefit  not  only  to  Egypt  but  to  England,  which  appropriated  the  money 
for  building  the  structures.  For  this  reason  the  exports  from  England  and  her  colonies 
to  Egypt  have  increased  greatly  over  what  they  were  under  the  limited  irrigation 
before  the  Government  made  the  appropriation. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  What  money  did  England  appropriate  to  build  irrigation  projects  for 
Egypt? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  They  appropriated  the  money  to  build  the  great  Assouan  Dam  and 
other  projects  in  India. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  To  build  the  Assouan  Dam? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes.  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  They  put  in  $2.5,000.000,  did  they  not? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  don't  remember  the  amount. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Who  did0 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  British  Government. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  British  Government  has  adopted  the  policy  of  building  these  great 
irrigation  projects  in  Egypt  and  in  India  as  capital  investments  without  return  to 
the  Government  of  the  money  and  without  the  charge  of  interest. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Egyptian  projects  were  not  appropriated  for  by  England  at  all,  as  far 
as  I  can  recall.  I  suppose  you  have  some  reason  for  saying  so,  or  you  would  not  say  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN-.  I  am  not  saying  it  as  a  positive  fact,  but  that  is  my  impression  that 
they  appropriated  for  it. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  I  never  heard  of  thorn  appropriating  any  money  for  Egyptian  projects. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Do  you  not  think,  Mr.  Adams,  that  the  development  of  this  area  will 
be  comparable  with  the  development  of  the  Nile — that  is,  in  proportion — in  the  way 
of  exports  coming  from  the  eastern  part  of  our  country,  if  you  call  them  that — the 
same  as  exports  came  from  England  to  Egypt  after  the  "development  there? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Comparing  it  in  that  way,  "Mr.  Arentz,  I  would  say  it  would  be  of  a 
great  deal  more  value  to  the  United  States  than  has  been  the  development  of  Egypt 
to  the  British  Empire,  for  this  reason:  Most  of  the  manufactured  products  used  at 
this  time  in  the  West  are  not  manufactured  in  the  West,  but  are  shipped  to  the  West 
from  eastern  manufacturing  centers.  There  can  be  placed  upon  this  area  in  the  cities 
and  upon  the  land  when  it  is  developed  a  population  of  approximately  500,000  people, 


38  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

and  these  people  will  expend,  based  upon  figures  we  think  reasonable,  $100,000,000 
a  year  in  eastern  manufacturing  centers  for  products  manufactured  and  shipped  to 
the  West  for  the  use  of  the  people  on  the  project.  That  means  that  all  of  the  eastern 
manufacturing  centers  are  vitally  interested  not  only  in  this  development,  but  in 
the  development  of  other  worthy  projects  in  the  West. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Mr.  Adams,  we  have,  I  think,  been  diverted  somewhat  from 
your  main  discussion,  and  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  at  this  time,  inasmuch  as  we 
are  off  the  subject.  This  question  may  have  been  answered,  but  what  per  cent  of 
the  lands  within  the  Columbia  Basin  project,  as  shown  on  the  map,  are  privately 
owned  and  what  per  cent  is  still  in  Government  ownership? 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  was  all  gone  into  yesterday. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  put  it  this  way:  That  5  per  cent  approximately  is  owned  by 
the  Northern  Pacific,  a  very  small  quantity  by  the  State  and  the  Government.  The 
rest  of  it  is  in  private  ownership,  at  least  90  per  cent  of  it,  and  of  that  90  per  cent 
approximately  half  is  in  holdings  of  360  acres  or  less,  and  the  other  half  is  in  holdings 
of  more  than  360  acres. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Now,  the  question  that  I  am  particularly  interested  in  is  this: 
Are  the  owners  of  the  land  upon  the  land  now? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Very  largely  not.  The  area  is  becoming  rapidly  depopulated  because 
of  the  arid  condition  that  exists  and  the  great  hazard  of  trying  to  grow  a  crop  under 
dry-farming  methods. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  So  far  as  you  know,  generally  speaking,  are  the  owners  people 
who  are  living  in  the  community  or  are  they  city  dwellers? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  say  that  a  great  many  of  them  are  men  who  have  been  driven 
off  the  area  by  aridity  and  are  now  in  the  logging  camps,  on  the  railroads,  or  in  the 
mines.  Some  of  them  are  in  the  cities  in  the  Pacific  Northwest  territory. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  And  not  engaged  in  agriculture;  not  as  a  rule  engaged  in 
agriculture? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  No,  sir;  not  as  a  rule. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Have  they,  so  far  as  you  know,  for  any  considerable  period 
ever  been  engaged  in  agricultural  pursuits? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes.  These  people  were  encouraged  to  take  up  agricultural  lands,  not 
knowing  the  conditions  under  which  they  had  to  labor;  they  moved  upon  this  area 
and  hoped  they  could  grow  a  crop.  Many  of  them  stayed  five,  six,  or  seven  years  and 
then  failed:  were  compelled  to  move  away  and  did  not  have  the  money  to  go  upon 
other  agricultural  lands.  But  their  desire.  I  believe,  from  conversations  with  repre- 
sentative groups  of  them,  is  to  go  back  to  the  land  as  soon  as  it  can  be  made  fit  for 
cultivation. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Have  you  any  information  as  to  whether  or  not  as  a  result  of 
the  climatic  conditions  and  the  people  leaving  the  land  there  has  been  any  con- 
siderable sale  of  the  land  within  recent  years  by  the  original  owners? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  There  have  been  some  large  tax  sales.  The  men  who  lived  upon  it 
were  unable  to  pay  their  taxes.  Many  tax  certificates  have  been  purchased. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Now,  as  to  those  sales,  is  it  a  fact  or  is  it  not  a  fact  that  they 
are  in  the  hands  of  a  very  few  people? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  No;  I  would  not  say  that. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  State  what  "are  the  facts,  if  you  know  them? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  would  say  that  those  tax  certificates  are  distributed  rather  wideJ\ 
over  the  State  and  mainly  within  the  State  of  Washington. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  So  far  as  you  know — if  you  have  any  information  on  the  ques- 
tion— are  they  in  the  hands  of  persons  who  are  interested  in  agriculture  or  expect  to 
engage  in  agriculture? 

5lr.  ADAMS.  To  answer  that  question  frankly,  I  would  say  that  these  tax  certificates 
were  bought  at  such  an  outrageously  low  figure  that  the  present  holders  are  holding 
them  with  the  expectation  of  making  a  profit  upon  them. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  While  we  are  on  that  point,  do  you  think  it  makes  any  difference 
whether  or  not  the  land  is  opened  in  large  areas  by  a  man  in  a  logging  camp  or  a  man 
in  a  city,  so  long  as  that  land  when  it  is  put  under  cultivation  is  divided  up  into 
80-acre  tracts  and  sold  to  the  man  that  wants  to  go  on  to  the  land  and  make  a  home 
there? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  At  a  reasonable  price. 

Mr.  AREXTZ.  Yes;  at  a  reasonable  price. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  our  contention.  Mr.  Arentz.  We  believe  that  this  project 
will  be  divided  into  farm  units  of  not  more  than  40  acres,  and  that  there  will  be  a 
great  demand  for  that  land  at  reasonable  prices  when  the  area  is  placed  under  water. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  finishing  the  matter  started  by  the  gentleman  from  L'tah  [Mr. 
Leatherwood],  can  you  not  give  us  some  estimate  as  to  the  amount  of  this  land  that  is 
now  held  by  people  who  bought  it  at  tax  sales? 


COLUMBIA   BASIX    IRRIGATION    PROJECT.  39 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  would  be  very  hard  to  answer  offhand  and  give  you  the  exact 
figure. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  can  be  had,  can  it? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  It  could  if  we  went  into  the  records  of  the  county  assessors.  Mr. 
Goodner,  I  think,  personally  made  an  investigation  of  that  matter  and  could  give 
you  more  specific  information. 

Mr.  GOOONER.  May  I  just  say  one  thing  in  answer  to  your  question,  Mr.  Raker? 
We  personally  went  over  the  county  records  in  the  four  counties  involved,  listed  the 
owners  of  record  of  every  tract  of  land,  amounting  to  a  great  many  thousand  pieces, 
and  we  found  that  the  large  proportion  of  the  tax  sales  have  been  made  to  the  large 
wheat  and  stock  growers  in  the  Palouse  country  to  the  east  and  in  Lincoln  County  an 
the  Big  Bend  country  to  the  north.  They  are  holding  those  lands  partially  for  a 
amall  amount  of  winter  grazing — the  little  snow  and  moisture  that  we  have  comes  in 
the  winter  and  they  get  a  small  amount  of  winter  grazing.  In  addition  to  that  they 
are  holding  the  lands  in  expectation  of  the  time  when  either  a  cycle  of  high-rainfall 
years  comes  along,  like  we  had  when  the  land  was  first  settled,  or  irrigation  will  enable 
them,  the  big  wheat  growers  of  that  country,  to  immediately  put  that  land  under 
cultivation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  the  experience  has  been  on  many  irrigation  projects  up  to  the 
present  time  that  some  of  these  large  holders  did  not  come  under  the  project,  and  that, 
has  hampered  the  project;  also  the  land  that  they  have  sold  has  been  sold  at  enormous 
prices,  much  more  than  the  cost  of  irrigation. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  recognize  that  fact? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  what  effort  have  you  people  made  to  avoid  that  same  condition 
under  this  proposed  project? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  anticipated  that,  and  two  years  ago  we  had  proposed  to  the  people 
of  the  State  of  Washington,  through  the  legislature,  a  constitutional  amendment  giving 
the  State  the  power  of  condemnation  as  far  as  irrigated  lands  are  concerned.  We 
have  determined  through  appraisals  the  values  of  this  land  in  its  raw  state.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  the  State  to  discourage  sales  at  excessive  prices  before  water  is  made  avail- 
able. We  can  condemn  at  present  raw-land  prices. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Has  that  act  been  passed  upon  by  your  court  of  last  resort? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  was  a  constitutional  amendment  adopted  by  the  people  of  the 
State  of  Washington.  It  is  now  a  part  of  our  State  constitution,  and  has  been  passed 
upon  by  our  State  supreme  court. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Suppose  a  man  has  a  1,000  acres  under  the  project,  the  contemplated 
project,  and  eventually  it  becomes  a  reality,  that  the  money  is  appropriated  and  the 
dams  and  ditches  and  canals  are  built  and  the  water  is  brought  down  on  to  the  land. 
In  the  meantime  he  has  not  disposed  of  his  laud.  That  land,  while  it  was  only  worth 
$2.50  an  acre  without  water,  is  to-day  worth  $250  an  acre.  Now  tell  the  committee 
what  arrangements  you  have  made  to  adjust  that  difference  and  dispose  of  the  man's 
960  acres  so  that  he  may  retain  40  acres,  if  any. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  will  be  very  glad  to  do  that.  In  the  first  place  we  have  come  in  con- 
tact through  correspondence  or  by  personal  conversation  with  many  of  these  owners 
whose  tracts  are  greater  than  360  acres — some  640  acres,  and  in  some  cases  even  a  whole 
township — and  they  have  reached  the  conclusion  and  have  agreed  with  us  that  if  this 
area  can  be  watered  by  the  United  States  Government  they  are  willing  in  most  in- 
stances to  dispose  of  their  excess  holdings  above  the  40-acre  unit. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  At  what  price?    Have  they  agreed  upon  a  price? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  will  answer  that  in  this  way:  An  appraisal  has  been  made  showing  the 
value  of  raw  land  fit  for  sheep  pasture  at  $3  to  $5  per  acre.  It  is  a  fair  valuation  at  the 
present  time.  Fair-class  wheat  land  on  which  crops  have  been  grown  is  valued  now  at 
about  $10  or  $15  per  acre.  There  are  a  few  sections  in  the  project  such  as  Rattlesnake 
Flats  and  Quincy  Valley,  that  have  a  slightly  greater  average  rainfall.  Some  of  that 
wheat  land  is  valued  at  "from  $20  to  $25  per  acre.  It  is  our  object  to  see  that,  as  far  as 
the  settler  is  concerned,  he  shall  pay  no  more  than  those  going  prices  when  he  buys 
his  40  acres. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  how  can  you  carry  that  intention  out? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  can  carry  that  intention  out  in  this  way:  If  this  becomes  a  Federal 
project  the  land  owners  would  be  compelled  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  agreeing  to  the  disposal  of  all  excess  areas  over  their  40-acre  unit. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Suppose  he  refuses  to  enter  into  that  contract? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Then  we  would  use  the  State  power  to  condemn  that  land  under  our 
constitutional  amendment. 

Mr.  BARBOVR.  And  take  title  to  the  State'.' 


40  COLUMBIA  BASIX    IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Take  title  in  the  State  and  turn  it  over  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
for  his  disposal. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Suppose  they  contested  those  condemnation  proceedings,  it  might 
take  some  considerable  time  to  dispose  of  that  matter  if  there  were  any  considerable 
number  of  cases. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  if  there  were  any  considerable  number  of  cases.  But  as  I  say, 
from  our  correspondence  and  from  our  personal  contact  with  these  large  owners  we  do 
not  anticipate  such  a  condition.  We  believe  firmly  that  we  will  not  have  that 
condition  to  meet  in  very  many  cases. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  no  binding  contract  has  been  entered  into  yet? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  None  at  this  time,  because  we  have  not  formed  a  district.  There  are 
several  things  to  be  done  to  perfect  that . 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know,  but  what  I  am  so  intent  on,  you  are  making  the  same  argu- 
ment that  I  heard  25  years  ago,  but  I  saw  and  realized  that  they  could  never  carry  it 
out,  and  these  men  paid  $150  and  §200  an  acre  for  some  of  this  land,  just  to  get  the 
land,  and  then  had  to  pay  for  the  water  right,  because  arrangements  were  not  made 
in  the  first  instance  to  bind  them  to  the  contract. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  just  the  reason  I  said  we  contemplated  that  situation  and 
have  passed  this  constitutional  amendment.  We  have  had  these  conversations  and 
tentative  agreements  through  correspondence  with  these  large  landowners. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  your  supreme  court  has  held  that  you  can  condemn  a  man's 
thousand  acres,  leaving  him  100  acres — well,  say  40  acres — for  the  purpose  of  the 
State  simply  taking  the  960  acres  to  sell  to  other  private  individuals? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Certainly.     The  State  is  now  doing  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  your  supreme  court  held  that  to  be  constitutional? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  there  any  opinion  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  on 
that? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Not  that  I  know  of,  not  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  but  our  State 
supreme  court.  And  the  State  of  Washington  is  now,  through  its  department  of 
conservation — 

Mr.  RAKER  ( interposing).  Will  you  submit  that  decision  so  that  it  can  go  into  the 
record  with  your  testimony? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Have  you  got  a  pretty  strong  court  out  there? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  think  we  have. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  always  have  had? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  seems  so  remarkable  to  me,  that  you  can  condemn  property  of 
private  individuals  by  the  State,  not  for  Government  use  but  to  turn  right  over  to 
another  private  individual . 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Simply  because  he  won't  enter  into  a  particular  contract. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir;  because  we  realize  that  that  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole 
State,  because  if  these  tracts  continue  to  be  held  in  1,000-acre  units,  as  you  say,  it  is 
not  for  the  best  interests  of  the  State  or  the  community  at  large  that  such  areas  be  held, 
especially  when  these  irrigable  lands  are  now  reverting  to  the  desert  instead  of  being 
developed. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  court  procedure  in  that  condemnation? 
Can  you  make  a  number  of  defendants,  a  number  of  landowners,  party  to  one  case? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir;  under  our  procedure.  If  we  created  a  district,  we  could  bring 
every  member  of  that  district  into  court  under  one  proceeding. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  would  just  have  the  one  action? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  One  action;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Now,  can  you  take  into  consideration  as  a  measure  of  damages  the 
possible  use  to  which  the  land  is  going  to  be  put? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  way  the  State  is  operating  in  those  cases  is  by  taking  the  raw  land 
at  the  present  time  and  not  as  it  will  be  in  the  future,  because  the  settler  is  expected  to 
derive  the  profit  from  it  by  his  own  labor  and  investment. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  May  I  interrupt  just  a  minute?  The  same  principle,  Mr.  Sinnott, 
would  apply  as  applies  in  the  ordinary  condemnation  case.  For  instance,  where  a 
railroad  is  condemning  land,  its  value  would  be  determined  upon  its  value  for  its 
highest  possible  use,  but  you  would  not  take  into  consideration  its  value  when  it 
became  railroad  land.  So  here  you  would  value  the  land  by  its  highest  possible  use 
in  its  then  state,  but  you  would  not  take  into  consideration  its  value  under  its  improved 
or  irrigated  state. 

Mr.  HXJDSPETH.  Was  Judge  Webster  on  that  court  when  that  decision  was  rendered? 
[Laughter.] 


COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  41 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Unfortunately  not.  but  I  think  he  would  have  concurred  if  he  had  been. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  were  giving  us  some  information  abovit  the  dams  on  the  Nile — — 

The  CHAIRMAN*  (interposing).  Excuse  me  a  minute.  I  want  to  make  an  inquiry  in 
connection  with  this  matter.  If  this  project  is  authorized  by  Congress,  undoubtedly 
a  provision  will  be  inserted  such  as  we  have  in  section  3  of  the  bill  10614,  that  before 
construction  of  the  project  is  commenced,  the  size  of  the  farms  therein  shall  be  estab- 
lished and  an  agreement  shall  be  made  effective  subjecting  not  less  than  80  per  cent 
of  the  excess  lands  within  the  project  to  disposal  by  authority  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  to  settlers  at  prices  and  terms  fixed  in  advance  in  such  agreement. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  have  you  overlooked  the  fact  that  these  folks  here 
now  are  seeking  authority  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an  appropriation  to  survey 
their  project,  and  all  of  these  conditions  exist  that  have  not  been  disposed  of  ? 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  How  could  all  the  conditions  be  disposed  of? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  This  is  only  a  preliminary  investigation.  Judge  Raker. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  This  is  a  preliminary  investigation,  Judge  Raker,  to  determine  and  fill 
in  the  gaps  that  General  Goethals  and  Mr.  Goodner  told  you  about  yesterday.  The 
investigations  we  have  made  are  also  preliminary,  looking  as  we  must  to  the  ultimate 
construction  and  completion  of  this  project.  These  problems,  as  nearly  as  possible, 
must  be  solved  in  advance.  That  is  the  reason  we  have  gone  into  them  so  fully. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  May  I  read  an  extract  from  a  letter  that  I  think  throws  considerable 
light  just  at  this  point  on  several  questions  that  have  been  asked  in  regard  to  condi- 
tions there?  I  want  to  say  that  these  two  letters  came  not  in  connection  with  this 
but  from  a  desire  to  secure  seed  wheat,  and  are  simply  telling  me  their  conditions. 
One  writes: 

"I  will  state  my  own  condition,  which  is.  I  believe,  that  of  the  average  farmer  here. 
I  came  here  16  years  ago,  at  the  time  this  country  was  being  opened  up  for  grain 
raising.  I  went  through  all  the  hardships  which  go  with  a  new  country.  Land  is 
cheap  here,  as  it  always  has  been.  We  have  not  had  a  land  boom  in  which  values 
were  inflated.  There  was  a  small  increase  in  land  values  during  the  war,  owing  to 
higher  grain  prices,  at  which  time  some  half  dozen  farms  changed  hands,  and  I  mention 
this  fact  to  show  that  most  of  us  are  the  original  settlers. 

•'During  the  last  five  years  we  have  been  passing  through  a  series  of  dry  years, 
which  together  with  the  price  deflation  has  wiped  away  the  savings  of  a  lifetime  for 
most  of  us,  as  well  as  the  work  of  the  last  15  years  here. 

'''My  taxes  are  years  behind,  also  my  interest.  I  have  used  up  my  local  credit. 
My  present  crop,  which  will  average  about  4  bushels  to  the  acre  of  wheat,  will  all  go, 
as  soon  as  I  thrash,  for  obligations.  I  do  not  know  at  the  present  time  how  I  can  finance 
myself  during  the  coming  year  and  stay  on  the  ranch." 

The  CHAIRMAN".  From  what  section  of  the  country  is  that  letter? 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  That  is  from  the  northern  part  of  this  project,  right  in  the  midst  of 
it.  One  short  sentence  from  another  letter  and  then  I  will  yield.  This  letter  states: 

• '  All  of  us  would  gladly  sell  part  or  all  of  our  holdings  to  meet  our  obligations  and  put 
in  another  crop,  but  conditions  are  such  that  we  can  not  sell  anything  for  cash." 

I  think  these  letters  answer  several  questions  that  have  been  raised. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xow,  the  State  of  Washington  has  already  spent  $150,000  on  this 
project.  They  have  surveyed  and  they  have  gone  over  the  tract  minutely.  While 
they  were  doing  all  of  that,  as  yet  they  have  made  no  definite  arrangements  to  protect 
incoming  purchasers,  and  I  am  wondering  why  they  did  not  obtain  a  contract  from  the 
landowner  that  if  it  was  eventually  put  into  a  reclamation  project  he  would  dispose  of 
all  of  his  land  except  40  acres. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Let  me  answer  that  in  this  way:  Until  this  investigation  is  completed 
it  would  be  presumptuous  to  create  a  district,  which  is  ultimately  the  object,  we 
think,  of  the  United  States  Government  and  the  State  under  our  district  laws.  How- 
ever, if  the  determination  to  be  made  by  the  Federal  Government  by  this  appropria- 
tion of  $100,000  shows  that  it  is  feasible  in  all  its  aspects,  then  we  contemplate  that  the 
Government  will  say:  "  If  you  form  the  district  we  will  have  some  legal  basis  on  which 
to  contract  with  your  settlers."  And  until  that  is  done  we  can  only  offer  these  sug- 
gestions and  these  preliminary  negotiations  to  determine  in  advance  what  the  senti- 
ment of  the  settlers  and  those  in  the  surrounding  country  may  be. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Right  there,  Mr.  Adams,  before  you  form  your  district,  suppose 
some  of  those  landowners  refuse  to  join,  would  you  then  bring  condemnation  pro- 
ceedings? 

Mr.  A  DAMS.  We  would  not  until  a  district  were  formed.  There  would  then  be  a  legal 
entity  through  which  the  State  could  proceed. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  But  suppose  the  landowners  refused  to  join  the  district? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Then  there  would  be  no  project.  Under  our  State  law  50  or  more  set- 
tlers on  a  project  can  petition  the  county  commissioners  for  the  formation  of  a  di.strict 


42  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  is  similar  to  our  law.     That  is  what  I  had  in  mind. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Then  they  vote  upon  whether  a  district  shall  be  formed  or  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  per  cent  of  them? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Two-thirds.  If  two-thirds  of  the  people  within  the  district  vote  lor 
the  formation  of  the  district,  it  becomes  a  legal  entity  and  a  public  corporation. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  But  if  you  do  not  get  that  two-thirds  vote,  then  your  district  falls. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  district  falls;  yes. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  whole  project  fails. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  whole  project  fails. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Now,  under  your  condemnation  proceedings  in  this  class  oi 
cases  provided  by  your  State  law,  I  take  it  from  what  you  said  that  the  title  would 
vest  in  the  State. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes;  title  would  vest  in  the  State. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  The  fee  simple  title? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Then,  under  such  an  act  or  an  act  similar  to  that  to  which  your 
attention  has  been  called  by  the  chairman — 

Mr.  ADAMS  (interposing').  The  State  would  enter  into  a  contract  with  the  Secretaiy 
of  the  Interior  giving  him  the  power  to  dispose  of  lands  subject  to  the  contract  with  the 
district. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Make  him  the  agent? 

Mr.  A-DAMS.  Make  him  the  agent,  through  his  department,  for  the  disposal  of  these 
lands  to  ex-service  men  and  others. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Would  the  State  convey  that  land  to  the  Federal  Government? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  believe  it  would,  in  trust  at  least. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  For  what  consideration? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Well,  that  would  be  a  matter  of  contract  between  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  and  the  State  through  its  district  organizations,  and  at  the  going  prices,  we 
presume,  of  lands  as  they  would  be  appraisedby  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  ^ 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Adams,  going  a  little  farther  with  Mr.  Barbour's  question,  after  the 
district  is  formed,  here  is  a  man  that  refuses  to  divide  his  lands:  the  State  commences 
this  proceeding  for  the  purpose  of  the  State  buying  the  land  for  final  disposition  of  it, 
through  condemnation  proceedings. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  what  is  that  purpose  for  which  the  State  can  acquire  that  par- 
ticular tract  of  land?  Is  there  any  particular  designation  under  the  Constitution? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  To  bring  it  within  the  district  so  that  that  land  rnay  be  assessed  and 
taxed  to  pay  for  the  water  upon  the  land  and  resale  to  the  settler  himself. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  not  the  question  I  asked  you.  If  a  majority,  a  two-thirds  vote 
decides  to  go  in,  the  one-third  must  come  under  the  district  under  the  law? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  the  question  is  as  to  the  division  of  the  tract  of  land  from  a 
1,000-acre  tract  to  a  40-acre  tract. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Well,  that  is  taken  care  of,  as  Mr.  Smith  called  your  attention  to, 
under  this  provision. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Oh,  no;  you  are  opening  up  quite  a  different  view.  The  secretary 
will  not  act  unless  that  is  done,  but  the  question  I  put  now  is  after  your  district  i? 
formed,  the  land  is  in,  legally  in — because  it  must  be  that  way — a  certain  minority 
can  object,  but  the  majority  or  two-thirds  or  three-fourths  can  put  you  in  the  dis- 
trict. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  this  man  who  has  objected  has  got  1,000  acres,  and  you  want  to 
reduce  him  to  40  acres;  do  you  say  you  can  commence  proceedings  in  the  State  court 
and  take  960  acres  from  him  by  the  State? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  For  what  purpose? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  For  the  purpose  of  permitting  him  to  hold  only  40  acres  of  land  and 
dispose  of  the  balance  to  the  subsequent  settlers  who  desire  that  land,  through  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  you  can  go  out  and  say:  "  Here,  Mr.  Brown,  you  have 
got  a  fine  piece  of  land;  you  are  a  good  farmer;  you  are  doing  well,  but  Mr.  Jones,  a 
red-headed  farmer  over  here,  is  a  little  lazy  and  trifling  but  we  like  him  and  we  will 
commence  condemnation  proceedings  to  take  your  land  from  you  and  give  it  to  Jones, 
the  red-headed  fellow. "  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think,  with  the  exception  of  drawing  the  distinction  between  the 
red-headed  man  and  the  original  owner,  that  is  about  correct. 


COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  43 

Mr.  LITTLE.  Don't  you  think  that  in  order  to  reach  a  legal  conclusion  on  which 
we  could  work  on  these  things  we  would  have  to  take  your  law  books  and  read  them 
-over,  or  are  you  satisfied  that  this  is  an  authentic  opinion? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  know  that  our  State  supreme  court  has  upheld  that  act,  and  I  will  be 
glad  to  submit  their  decision. 

Mr.  HAYDEN*.  You  have  actually  had  cases  where  you  brought  a  man  into  court 
who  refused  to  include  his  lands  within  an  irrigation  project;  you  have  condemned 
the  land,  taken  it  away  from  him,  and  sold  it  to  other  people,  and  all  that  has  been 
approved  by  your  State  supreme  court? 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  You  can  put  in  the  decision  in  the  case. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  supreme  court  decision  in  our  State  which  passed  upon  the 
powers  of  our  reclamation  department,  division  of  reclamation,  hinges  the  whole 
constitutionality  of  our  act  upon  one  clause,  that  was  for  the  purpose  of  developing 
the  lands.  They  have  held  that  as  long  as  we  take  these  lands  for  the  purpose  of 
increasing  the  development  upon  them,  lands  which  are  now  idle,  and  put  them  into 
any  form  of  agricultural  development,  that  that  is  within  the  power  of  the  State: 
that  the  constitutional  amendment  contemplated  that  very  thing.  We  could  not 
take  your  land  away  from  you  and  allow  it  to  lie  idle  nor  put  it  to  some  other  use 
than  agricultural  development. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now.  this  question,  so  that  we  may  understand  it — and  I  am  not  going 
to  take  too  much  time — suppose  a  man  has  160  acres  under  a  project  like  this.  It  is 
under  cultivation.  A  district  is  formed.  The  man  is  an  objector,  but  under  the  dis- 
trict he  could  only  hold  40  acres. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Your  premise  can  not  be  met  in  our  State.  That  premise  could  not 
obtain,  because  the  land  could  not  be  under  cultivation  in  advance  of  splitting  up 
into  these  units,  because  we  would  not  build  the  project.  The  project  would  not  be 
authorized  nor  built  until  after  this  splitting  up  of  ownership  had  been  accomplished. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Suppose  you  had  a  tract  actually  under  development  within  a  con- 
templated project,  say,  a  tract  of  100  acres,  then  that  man  would  have  to  give  up  all 
but  40  acres? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  There  isn't  any  such  thing  in  that  country.  Any  lands  that  are 
already  supplied  with  water  within  a  proposed  project  would  be  entitled  to  exclusion 
from  the  district,  because  they  have  their  own  water  supply. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Even  though  they  were  right  inside  of  the  exterior  boundaries  of  the 
district? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes;  we  have  that  condition  in  administering  the  State  districts, 
that  I  told  you  about  yesterday.  We  have  20  or  more  districts  now  that  are  operating 
in  that  way.  Within  some  of  them  there  are  individual  tracts  that  have  their  own 
wells  or  springs  or  riparian  rights  and  do  not  get  the  district  service,  and  while  they  are 
entirely  geographically  within  the  district  they  are  politically  not  part  of  the  district  at 
all. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  And  would  not  be  included  in  it? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  And  would  not  be  included  in  it. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Your  constitutional  amendment  is  also  directed  at  the  large  land 
holder  outside  of  the  irrigation  districts,  is  it  not,  and  is  for  the  purpose  of  breaking  up 
some  of  those  large  holdings? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  It  covers  irrigation  districts  ordrainage  work  only;  any  reclamation 
work.  It  must  be  aimed  at  reclaiming  land;  we  can  not  exercise  that  power  for  any 
other  purpose. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  But  a  man  holding  a  tract  of,  say,  100,000  acres  outside  of  a  project , 
you  could  not  proceed  against  him? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Not  unless  we  contemplate  development  of  the  tract. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  WTill  you  put  that  act  into  the  record,  and  also  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  That  constitutional  amendment? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  this  proceeding  in  your  supreme 
«ourt  would  act  as  an  entering  wedge  in  operative  socialism. 

Mr.  GOODSER.  Perhaps  so;  and  so  are  all  irrigation  projects. 

Mr.  HAYDEN'.  It  may  shock  some  of  the  legal  minds  around  this  table,  but  I  tnink 
the  State  of  Washington  should  be  complimented  on  the  adoption  of  that  constitu- 
tional amendment.  It  may  be  contrary  to  all  the  precedents,  but  it  is  apparently  a 
good  means  to  attain  a  most  desirable  end. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  I  think  it  should  go  further  and  apply  to  all  large  holdings. 

Mr.  Sis'NOTT.  Mr.  Adams,  you  said  that  the  State  could  take  idle  lands.  Is  tha 
the  only  kind  of  land  that  they  could  take?  Would  this  land  be  considered  idle? 


44  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION'   PROJECT. 

Now,  here  is  160  acres  in  the  exterior  boundaries  of  that  project.  It  is  not  irrigated 
but  is  being  cultivated  by  dry  farming.  Would  you  take  that  160  acres  under  your 
condemnation? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Not  unless  it  was  to  be  irrigated. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Irrigation  would  increase  the  value  of  that  land. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  could  take  that  160  acres  of  land  under  dry  farming  for  the  pur- 
pose of  irrigating  it? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  just  one  other  question  on  that  line. 

When  the  State  gets  it,  what  is  the  plan  in  the  disposition  of  that  land  to  settlers : 
do  they  make  a  profit  on  it  or  turn  it  over  at  actual  cost? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  try  to  discourage  profiteering  for  this  reason:  If  the  man  is  compelled 
to  pay,  we  will  say,  $3  or  $5  or  $10  or  $25  an  acre,  and  on  top  of  that  we  put  a  water 
charge  of  $144.99  or  $145,  we  think  that  is  as  much  as  the  settler  should  be  compelled 
to  pay.  With  the  amortization  of  his  payments,  any  excess  over  the  going  value  of  the 
land  works  to  the  detriment  of  the  settler  and  is  also  detrimental  to  the  State. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  There  is  one  question  I  would  like  to  ask.  You  gave  us  the  information 
that  the  British  Government  advanced  the  money  to  build  the  Aswan  Dam.  Their 
Egyptian  Government  built  the  barrage  below  Cairo  and  near  Cairo.  There  are  three 
of  those  big  dams  on  the  Nile,  and  do  you  know  who  furnished  the  money  for  the 
third  one  at  Assiut? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  You  mean  the  Aswan  Dam? 

Mr.  LITTLE.  No;  you  said  the  British  built  the  Aswan  Dam.  Now  I  happen  to 
know  that  the  Egyptian  Government  built  the  barrage;  who  built  that  dam  at  Assiut? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  Agricultural  Department  and  the  Geological  Survey  here  in 
this  city  have  both  issued  bulletins  covering  Egyptian  reclamation,  as  well  as  the 
reclamation  in  India.  While  it  is  true  that  the  old  Egyptian  rulers  started  the  bar- 
rage, they  never  successfully  completed  it.  It  was  completed  and  the  two  dams, 
the  Aswan  and  the  Assiut,  and  the  work  was  done  and  the  work  now  going  on  is 
under  the  auspices  of  the  British  Government. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  But  the  barrage  was  built  by  the  Egyptian  Government  itself. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  And  the  engineers  were  Italian  first,  then  French,  and  then  English, 
but  the  government  built  it  itself. 

Now,  do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  Aswan  Dam  was  built  by  the  British 
Government's  money? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir;  and  also  the  Assiut.  And  the  work  which  has  gone  on  ever 
since  has  been  direct  from  imperial  funds  advanced  the  same  as  this  country  would 
build  a  post  office. 

Mr.  LITTLE  .  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  imperial  funds  maintain  the  Aswan  and  the 
Assiut  Dams. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  The  water  is  rented  each  year  and  they  are  sustained  in  that  way. 
They  auction  off  the  use  of  the  water  each  year  in  Egypt  on  a  rental  basis,  and  that 
ncome  is  the  only  way  that  the  Egyptian  Government  has  of  raising  money  for  that 
purpose.  The  finances  of  the  Egyptian  Government  have  been  guaranteed  until  quite 
recently  and  administered  by  England. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  get  this  information  from  these  circulars,  about  the  English 
Government  building  these  dams? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  From  them  and  from  the  personal  correspondence  of  Sir  William 
Wilcocks,  English  administrator  in  charge  of  the  work. 

Mr.  LITTLE.  You  have  read  of  his  work?  If  the  British  Government  built  th<> 
Assouan  and  Assiaut  Dams  I  would  like  to  get  the  facts.  The  Banage  was  not  so 
built  and  I  do  not  understand  that  the  others  were. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  I  have  had  a  great  deal  of  detailed  information  from  him  on  that 
work. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  Mr.  Adams,  I  wonder  whether  or  not,  in  pursuance  of  that  con- 
stitutional provision  the  State  has  passed  any  law  or  is  there  any  regulation  by  which 
the  State  agrees  not  to  sell  this  land  at  a  profit?  In  other  words,  turn  it  over  to  the 
settler  at  actual  cost? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir;  the  State  has  determined  the  price  in  advance  of  lands  on 
projects.  Not  this  particular  one,  but  it  has  about  twenty  projects  under  the  State- 
reclamation  service  and  it  has  determined  the  going  price  of  the  land,  and  will  take  ir 
over  and  reclispose  of  it  to  ex-service  men  or  others  who  desire  it  at  that  figure,  without 
any  additional  enhancement  of  price. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  In  other  words,  the  aim  of  the  State  is  to  take  these  lands  and  turn 
them  over  to  the  settler  at  what  they  actually  cost  the  State? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the  policy  of  the  State. 


COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  45 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Would  the  cost  of  condemnation  proceedings  be  included? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  presume  that  would  be  part  of  the  cost,  but  that  is  a  very  small  figure 
when  you  can  combine  all  of  these  holders  into  one  proceeding.  The  cost  would  be 
so  small  that  it  would  not  be  appreciable. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  It  would  be  very  small  per  acre  if  they  were  all  combined  in  one 
proceeding. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Who  is  the  Columbia  River  Basin  Irrigation  League? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  Columbia  Basin  Irrigation  League  is  an  organization  of  those  in- 
terested in  this  development  in  the  States  of  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Idaho.  They 
are  all  interested  in  this  development  becavise  they  realize  that  with  the  settlement  of 
this  project  and  the  bringing  in  of  half  or  three-quarters  of  a  million  people,  the  bene- 
fits will  be  distributed  over  the  entire  Pacific  Northwest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  development  of  commerce  and  the  development  of  the  coun- 
try is  a  Government  function  of  the  State  of  Washington? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes;  cooperating  with  the  league. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  much  did  this  document  cost  you,  this  Columbia  basin  project? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  What  document  are  you  referring  to? 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  report  of  George  W.  Goethals  &  Co.. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  can  show  by  that  the  way  the  State  and  the  league  cooperate. 
The  legislature  made  an  appropriation  of  $50,000,  a  great  part  of  which  was  spent  on 
drilling  the  dam  site  at  Grand  Coulee.  When  that  fund  was  exhausted,  or  almost  ex- 
hausted, it  was  realized  that  we  should  have  an  engineer  of  outstanding  reputation  to 
go  over  the  project  and  make  an  independent  study  of  it;  therefore  the  State  put  in  all 
of  its  remaining  available  fund  granted  by  the  legislature  and  the  citizens  of  the  Paci- 
fic Northwest  made  up  the  balance  by  private  contribution  in  order  to  take  care  of 
the  small  deficit  necessary  to  get  this  report  out. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  If  Congress  should  appropriate  the  moneys  called  for  in  this 
bill,  that  could  be  expended,  as  I  understand  it,  by  the  Reclamation  Service? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir;  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  I  do  not  recall,  but  do  they  have  the  power  of  going  outside 
of  their  force  and  employing  engineers? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  presume  so. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Yes,  they  employ  engineers. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  They  employ  consulting  engineers. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  It  is  contemplated  that  General  Goethals  will  be  retained  in 
the  further  development  of  this  project? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  can  not  anticipate  that.  That  is  entirely  a  matter  for  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior  to  decide. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Adams,  I  had  a  conversation  recently  with  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  during  which  he  stated  that  his  idea  at  this  time  would  be  to  send  an 
investigating  committee  of  three.  He  would  call  on  the  Agriculture  Department 
for  a  soil  expert;  he  would  call  on  the  Geological  Survey  for  a  geologist,  and  he  would 
call  on  the  Reclamation  Service  for  an  engineer;  and  he  thought  that  would  be  a  proper 
committee  to  make  the  investigation  contemplated  in  this  bill. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  That  sounds  very  sensible. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  It  did  to  me. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Have  you  had  sufficient  communication,  Mr.  Adams,  with  these 
property  owners  in  that  district  that  you  would  be  justified  in  saying  to  the  committee 
at  this  time  that  in  your  opinion  two-thirds  of  them  would  vote  to  go  into  that  district? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  it  would  be  almost  unanimous. 

Mr.  SUMMER.  I  think  the  letter  that  I  read  into  the  record  throws  some  light  on 
that. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  can  say  that  confidently  for  this  reason:  This  area  is  becoming  rapidly 
depopulated;  the  people  there  are  thinking  and  dreaming  of  nothing  but  bringing 
water  upon  that  land.  It  is  their  only  hope  of  salvation.  They  are  so  intensely 
interested  in  it  that  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  settler  on  the  project  at  the  present 
time  who  would  vote  against  it. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  A  settler  or  an  owner? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  A  settler  or  an  owner.     I  think  the  vote  would  be  unanimous. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Why  has  the  State  not  made  further  appropriations  and  gone  ahead 
and  completed  the  project? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  it  only  fair  to  say  that  the  State  having  made  an  appropriation 
of  $150,000  up  to  the  present  time,  almost  unprecedented  so  far  as  States  are  concerned, 
has  already  gone  a  long  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  thought  you  said  the  State  appropriated  $50,000. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  $50,000  that  I  spoke  of  was  the  second  appropriation.  The  first 
appropriation  was  $100,000,  which  was  exhausted.  The  State  then  made  a  further 
appropriation  of  $50,000. 


46  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr..  RAKER.  Then,  the  State  has  appropriated  $150,000  altogether? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  State  has  appropriated  $150,000,  and  we  have  had  access  to  records 
of  railroads  and  counties,  etc. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know,  but  just  the  cash  was  what  I  was  asking  for.  Now,  why  has 
not  the  State  appropriated  more  and  gone  ahead? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  State  appropriation  made  at  the  last  biennium  has  only  recently- 
been  exhausted.  Our  legislature  does  not  meet  until  January. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Of  this  next  year? 

Mr.  AJDAMS.  Of  this  next  year,  yes;  and  having  made  this  appropriation  of  $150,000 
for  preliminary  investigations,  I  believe  the  State  thinks  at  this  time— or  I  think  it 
is  reasonable  for  it  to  think— that  the  project  should  now  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  Federal  Government. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Supposing  that  is  done,  what  would  you  do  with  reference  to  reim- 
bursing the  Federal  Government  for  the  money  it  has  appropriated? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  As  I  take  it,  as  far  as  reimbursing  the  Federal  Government  for  the 
money  appropriated  is  concerned,  it  would  be  the  policy  of  the  Reclamation  Service, 
if  it  pursued  the  policy  that  it  has  adopted,  that  this  $100,000  would  be  ultimately 
reimbursable  to  the  Government  as  part  of  its  expenditure  and  repaid  by  the  land 
holder. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Provided  it  was  consumated,  but  suppose  it  was  not  consumated,  then 
what?  Supposing  the  report  is  adverse,  what  is  the  Government  going  to  do  about 
the  money  appropriated? 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Would  the  Government  not  do  just  as  it  does  in  every  other  case  where 
it  spends  money  and  does  not  accomplish  anything — the  money  would  be  lost? 

Mr.  GOODWIN.  It  would  do  what  the  State  did  with  the  $150,000  they  put  in. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Oh,  that  is  a  different  thing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  State  or  local  communities  are  to  bear  half  of  the  expense  of 
the  investigation  and  the  suggestion  you  offer  would  be  unusual  and  unprecedented. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  I  was  asking  the  witness  a  plain  q  uestion  so  that  anybody  who  reads 
the  record  might  know  exactly  where  we  stand.  We  have  nothing  to  cover  up. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  The  people  of  Texas  have  continuously  put  up  money  for  investi- 
gations down  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  Federal  Government  has  also  put  up  money  for  them. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  don't  think  the  Federal  Government  ever  put  up  a  dollar  in  my 
State. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  answer  is  so  easy  that  I  am  surprised  that  you  would  ask  the 
question.  The  Government  loses  the  money;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  come  out  and  say  so. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  what  I  wanted  to  say.  There  would  be  a  loss  of  $100,000  upon 
the  part  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  on  what  theory  do  you  base  the  argument  that  the  Government 
should  run  the  risk  of  losing  $100,000? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  On  the  theory  that  this  is  a  great  national  asset;  that  the  Government 
can  well  afford  to  put  in  $100,000  to  complete  this  investigation,  because  it  will  mean 
to  the  United  States  Government  alone  very  great  returns,  not  only  in  the  prosperity 
of  its  people  but  the  return  in  income  taxes  would  soon  pay  for  the  cost  of  this  project 
if  it  is  built  by  the  United  States. 

Mr.  RAKER!  Now,  the  general  estimate  of  cost  is  now  fixed  at  about  what? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  total  cost  will  be  about  $254,000,000. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  did  we  appropriate  for  the  investigation  of  the  Imperial  Valley 
in  California? 

Mr.  RAKER.  $20.000. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  \Vhat  is  the  status  of  that? 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  before  the  committee  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  prospect  of  getting  back  the  $20,000. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  can  get  it  all  back  by  applying  that  canal  project,  if  you  want  to. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  The  Government  in  the  Imperial  Valley  owns  a  very  large  amount 
of  land  that  would  be  affected  by  the  improvement  there. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  This  would  not  be  any  different  from  the  Imperial  Valley. 

Mr.  RAKER.  None  whatever,  but  this  witness  appears  to  be,  and  I 'am  satisfied 
from  my  own  observation  that,  he  is,  an  intelligent  witness,  that  he  knows  what  he  is 
talking  about  and  he  is  not  afraid  to  tell  you  that  if  vou  appropriate  the  money  and  it 
turns  out  to  be  a  failure,  the  Government  loses,  but  the  Government  can  well  afford  to 
lose  it  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  investigation.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  de- 
velop if  it  is  a  fact. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  a  very  good  answer. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now  the  $254,000,000,  how  do  you  expect  to  get  that? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  You  mean  how  it  would  be  reimbursed  to  the  Government? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  47 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xo:  how  do  you  expect  to  get  it  in  the  first  instance. 
Mr.  ADAMS.  By  a  loan  of  the  credit  of  the  Government  until  the  settlers  could  repay 
the  money. 

Mr.  RAKER.  By  direct  appropriation? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  how  as  to  the  interest  pending  the  time  it  shall  be  repaid. 
Mr.  ADAMS.  It  is  our  belief  that  the  policy  of  the  Government  should  be— of  course 
we  can  only  offer  the  suggestion— that  because  of  the  benefit  to  the  Nation  it  can  well 
afford  to  lend  its  credit  over  a  period  of  40  years  without  interest. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  is  your  idea  now,  supposing  within  the  next  year  surveys  are 
made  and  reports  are  made  that  show  that  the  project  is  feasible  and  would  justify 
the  construction  because  of  the  benefits  it  would  be  to  the  land  in  enhanced  value, 
even  if  it  cost  §254,000.000 — what  is  your  idea  as  to  how  long  it  would  take  to  construct 
the  work  so  that  it  would  become  useful  to  the  land? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  Six  years. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  within  six  years  repayment  could  begin  to  be  made? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  I  doubt  that,  because  in  justice  to  the  settler  he  should  be  given  at 
least  two  or  three  years  to  get  his  land  in  shape  before  he  would  be  asked  to  make  or 
to  begin  making  returns  to  the  Federal  Government. 

On  these  irrigation  projects  you  can  not  turn  the  water  right  on  and  grow  a  crop  at 
once. 

Mr.  RAKER.  One  other  question  and  I  am  through.  Supposing  in  this  project  a 
man  has  1,000  acres;  the  unit  is  40  acres,  and  under  your  law  you  can  condemn,  say, 
960  acres.  Suppose  he  has  two  or  three  growing  boys  who  are  very  near  of  age,  and  a 
couple  of  daughters — he  has  a  family  of  five  or  six — is  it  your  purpose  or  the  purpose 
of  the  State  to  take  all  of  that  land  from  that  man  if  these  children  are  under  age,  so 
that  he  may  not  be  able  to  within  two  or  three  or  four  or  five  years  turn  40.  acres  to 
this  boy  and  40  acres  to  this  girl  when  she  gets  married,  and  40  to  the  other  boy? 
Have  you  got  any  policy  of  that  kind  determined? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  do  not  think  that  would  be  necessary,  because  under  the  laws  of  our 
State,  or  any  other  State,  the  father  could  readily  make  a  conveyance  to  any  of  these 
minor  children.     That  will  protect  their  interests. 
Mr.  RAKER.  That  can  be  done  now  under  the  reclamation  project? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  I  think  that  is  true. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  We  are  doing  that  now.  In  the  present  administration  of  the  other 
districts,  if  a  man  shows  that  he  has  got  a  legitimate  use  for  the  extra  land,  he  is  per- 
mitted to  withhold  that  land.  We  are  not  making  any  attempt  at  all  to  take  land 
away  from  a  family  where  a  family  shows  capability  of  handling  it.  That  is  actually 
going  on  to-day  upon  thousands  and  thousands  of  acres  where  the  State  has  control 
in  that  way. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  very  fine. 
Mr.  GOODNER.  That  is  our  established  policy. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  It  would  be  a  mistaken  policy  not  to  do  it,  because  those  are  just  the 
kind  of  people  we  want  to  remain  on  the  land.  Those  are  the  kind  of  settlers  that 
we  are  looking  for,  who  are  contented  and  want  to  live  there. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  it  is  very  well  to  let  the  public  know  so  that  if  a  man  goes  in 
there  with  his  family  he  has  got  prospects  for  his  boys  and  girls  who  want  to  build  up 
the  country. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  will  say  as  a  general  principle  that  it  is  the  policy  of  the  State  to 
look  to  the  settler  himself.  He  is  the  primary  individual  that  everybody  should  look 
to,  and  who.se  happiness  should  be  considered  above  everything  else. 

Mr.  HAYDEN*.  That  meets  the  objection  which  I  made  yesterday  to  the  small  size 
of  the  farm  unit.  If  you  limit  the  farm  unit  to  40  acres'  to  a  family  and  that  is  all  the 
land  that  the  entire  family  may  obtain,  it  is  too  small.  But  if  you  allow  a  man  to 
obtain  40  acres  for  himself  and  40  for  his  wife,  and  then  if  they  have  a  boy  coming  of 
age  who  can  properly  cultivate  it,  allow  a  unit  for  him,  that  makes  a  very  different 
situation.  When  the  time  comes  to  divide  40  acres  among  the  members  of  a  family, 
each  child  may  receive  only  5  or  10  acres  which  is  such  a  small  unit  that  they  can  not 
make  a  living  on  it. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  You  have  got  to  allow  for  expansion,  that  is  true,  and  I  think  any 
other  policy  would  be  detrimental  to  the  development  of  the  country. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  And  your  idea  is,  that  that  is  the  settled  policy  of  the  State  now 
and  that  they  are  carrying  it  out  every  day? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  did  not  know  that  and  I  wanted  it  to  go  into  the  record  so  there 
would  be  no  question  about  it. 

25410—22 4 


48  COLUMBIA   BASIX    IRRIGATION    PROJECT. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  What  is  the  test,  Judge  Webster,  as  to  the  beneficial  use? 
Theoretically  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  that,  but  how  are  you  going  to  prevent,  under 
your  State  law.  the  very  thing  happening  that  frequently  has  happened  with  refer- 
ence to  acquiring  coal  land?  Suppose  I  owned  a  large  tract  of  this  land  in  question, 
2.000  acres:  is  there  anything  to  prevent  me  from  conveying  that  to  John  Jones  and 
Sam  Smith,  who  have  large  families,  and  then  having  them  divide  among  their 
children,  and  then  later  all  of  it  drifting  back  again  to  a  common  ownership? 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Well,  you  see  you  have  a  different  element  here,  Mr.  Leatherwood. 
The  whole  theory  upon  which  the  power  of  the  State  rests  to  condemn  this  land  is 
that  the  State  proposes  to  take  the  land  and  develop  it  and  put  it  in  a  more  useful 
and  more  valuable  condition  than  it  was,  a  thing  in  which  all  of  the  people  are  inter- 
ested. Now  as  long  as  that  is  being  done  and  the  development  is  being  kept  within 
unite  that  are  practical,  you  are  changing  the  condition  of  that  thing  all  the  while. 
You  take  the  coal  lands  that  you  speak  of.  the  Government  is  not  doing  anything 
with  them;  it  does  not  expect  to  do  anything  with  them;  the  coal  is  there  and  it  is 
a  proposition  of  taking  it  out.  Here  the  State  government  acquires  the  title  to  the 
land  for  the  purpose  of  changing  its  condition  and  status  elevating  it  to  a  higher  use- 
fulness, a  thing  in  which  all  the  State  is  interested  and  upon  which  the  State  exer- 
cises its  power  of  eminent  domain.  Now  having  the  power  to  do  that,  the  State  has 
the  power  to  do  the  things  that  are  incidental  to  making  that  effective,  one  of  which 
is  to  keep  it  in  units  of  such  size  as  to  make  its  development  practical. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  The  only  analogy  in  the  illustration  was  the  getting  back  to 
common  ownership,  as  to  what  test  you  nave  to  prevent  a  man  with  a  large  tract  making 
simply  as  a  matter  of  form,  conveyance  with  either  a  secret  understanding  or  other 
wise,  and  then  after  a  certain  period  it  comes  back. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  The  test  would  be:  Are  you  developing  that  land  and  putting  it 
into  a  higher  state  of  usefulness  than  it  was  before?  The  State  would  not  be  concerned 
in  the  question  of  whether  I  or  my  son  owned  80  acres  of  land,  if  both  I  and  my  son 
were  developing  that  land  and  putting  it  into  a  higher  state  of  usefulness  from  which 
the  public  derives  the  benefit. 

Mr.  HAYDEX.  There  is  one  further  means  of  control  that  exists  on  an  irrigation  proj- 
ect that  could  not  exist  with  respect  to  coal  land.  I  refer  to  the  absolute  control  over 
the  delivery  of  water.  A  regulation  could  very  properly  be  imposed  that  Avater  would 
not  be  served  to  land  in  one  ownership  greater  than  the  farm  unit. 

Mr.  WTEBSTER.  Of  course  that  is  fundamental  in  all  these  projects,  you  have  that 
power  of  regulation  and  control  incident  to  your  power  to  control  the  supply  of  water 
itself. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  There  is  one  more  clause  that  runs  with  that.  In  the  contracts 
which  the  State  is  now  making  on  the  other  projects,  and  I  assume  it  will  apply  to  this, 
we  make  a  written  agreement  with  each  of  these  owners  whose  land  we  take  over. 
That  agreement  provides  that  the  option  in  the  State  runs  with  the  land  through 
successive  ownership  until  in  the  judgment  of  the  department  of  conservation  and 
development  the  land  has  reached  a  stage  of  development  under  which  we  may  cancel 
that  control.  You  can  transfer  it  through  70  different  hands,  but  if  none  of  them 
develop  it,  our  control  holds. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Will  you  kindly  insert  a  copy  of  that  contract  in  the  record? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  I  will  get  one. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  just  seems  to  me  that  the  farmer  hasn't  any  chance  on  God's  earth 
to  determine  whether  or  not  he  has  got  sense  enough  to  run  his  farm.  It  may  be  a 
good  thing,  but  I  don't  know. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Just  the  minute  that  he  makes  wheat  come  up  out  of  that  ground 
the  farm  is  his  to  do  with  as  he  pleases;  if  he  doesn't  make  it  come  up,  we  think  we 
have  a  right  to  assist  him  to  make  it  come  up. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  believe  in  helping  him.  but  I  just  made  that  statement  off  hand. 
Now,  what  is  your  idea  as  to  the  advisability  of  this  legislation  for  this  project  in 
particular,  and  the  further  idea  of  making  this  bill  general,  authorizing  the  appro- 
priation of  $500,000  or  $1,000.000,  and  giving  the  Reclamation  Service  the  power  to 
make  these  investigations  under  certain  conditions  so  that  we  can  really  get  general 
development  in  the  West?  What  is  your  idea  as  to  that? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  the  policy  of  this  bill.  This  $100.000  appropriation  is  to  be 
made  for  the  benefit  of  the  investigation  through  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  himself. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  don't  quite  get  me.  This  is  a  specific  project.  Every  com- 
munity and  every  locality  almost  is  demanding  just  what  you  people  are  asking. 
They  have  been  demanding  it  for  10  or  15  years.  How  can  the  other  members  justify 
one  particular  project  by  special  vote  when  it  ought  to  be  a  policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  authorize  such  investigations  as  in  the  Judgment  of  the  Reclamation  Service 
are  proper? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN  IRRIGATION  PROJECT.  49 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Well,  I  will  answer  that  in  two  ways.  First,  I  thin'c  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  himself  has  designated  in  his  communication  to  you  that  he  thinks 'this 
investigation  should  be  made.  Xow,  that,  as  far  as  the  Government  is  concerned, 
evidently  lays  down  the  policy  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  as  to  these  investiga- 
tions. - 

Second,  that  this  project  is  so  large,  comparatively  speaking,  that,  as  Mr.  Goodwin 
outlined  to  you  yesterday,  it  becomes  one  of  three  great  proposed  developments  in 
the  West— the  development  of  Alaska,  the  development  of  the  Colorado  Basin,  and 
the  development  of  the  Columbia  Basin. 

Now,  because  those  do  take  on  a  national  aspect  and  national  importance,  and 
incidentally,  of  course,  are  of  great  local  importance,  it  is  therefore  a  problem  for  the 
National  Government  rather  than  for  a  local  government  or  a  community. 

Mr.  LEATHER  WOOD.  Does  the  number  of  acres,  in  your  judgment,  determine  whether 
a  question  is  national  or  not  in  a  proposition  of  this  kind? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Not  wholly  the  number  of  acres.  But  I  would  say  that  this  whole 
plan  of  development  is  necessarily  a  Government  project  rather  than  a  State  project, 
because  of  the  water  rights  involved,  because  of  the  tremendous  area,  and  because  of 
the  benefits  to  the  entire  United  States  through  the  ultimate  development  of  the 
project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Bien  says  he  would  like  to  answer  that  question. 

Mr.  BIEX.  I  simply  want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  some  years  ago,  or  a  num- 
ber of  years  ago,  Congress  appropriated  $50.000  for  secondary  investigation.  We  have 
tried  to  get  more  because  that  was  not  enough.  For  the  last  two  or  three  years  the 
appropriation  has  been  $100,000,  and  we  used  that  for  general  investigations.  We 
have  a  great  many  more  demands  than  we  can  possibly  comply  with,  so  we  would 
not  object  if  you  could  have  that  increased. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  might  make  a  further  suggestion  that  such  an  appropriation  is  not 
unprecedented,  in  that  $20.000  was  appropriated  by  Congress  for  investigation  of  the 
lower  Colorado  River  in  cooperation  with  the  Imperial  irrigation  district,  and  that 
the  last  annual  appropriation  bill  for  the  Interior  Department  carried  an  appropria- 
tion of  $100,000  for  investigations  on  the  Colorado  River. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Well,  the  only  point  I  made  was  not  an  objection,  either  fundamental 
or  specific;  but  there  is  such  a  demand  by  so  many  of  the  western  communities  that 
feel  that  they  are  situated  just  like  these  gentlemen  say  they  are,  that  it  is  a  govern- 
mental function  and  one  of  the  great  things  that  is  necessary  to  develop  the  West, 
like  the  Columbia  River,  the  Colorado  River,  and  other  projects  which  are  not  quite 
so  large. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Could  this  project  be  carried  through  under  the  Smith-McXary 
bill  if  it  was  enacted  into  law? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Because  of  its  cost  I  think  that  it  would  be  rather  doubtful  whether  it 
could  be  carried  through  under  the  Smith-McXary  bill.  However,  if  the  fund  pro- 
vided in  the  Smith-McXary  bill  revolves  as  some  of  its  supporters  believe  it  will 
revolve,  ultimately  it  might  be  built  under  that.  It  will  be  long  years  in  the  future, 
however. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  As  I  understand  it,  the  Smith-McXary  bill  authorizes  an  appro- 
priation of  $350,000,000. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Xow  the  thought  occured  to  me  that  if  we  attempt  to  pass  special 
legislation  applying  only  to  this  project,  it  might  to  a  certain  extent  jeopardize  the 
possibility  of  passing  the  Smith-McXary  bill. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  it  would  aid  greatly  the  passage  of  the  Smith-McXary  bill, 
and  our  people  of  the  Pacific  Xorthwest  believe  so. 

The  question  now  as  to  the  $100,000.  Let  me  answer  that  first.  Even  under  the 
Smith-McXary  bill  you  could  not  proceed  with  this  project  until  this  investigation 
had  been  made,  and  therefore  we  are  asking  for  this  $100,000  in  order  that  whatever 
plan  may  be  adopted  by  the  Government  in  the  future,  this  project  at  least  will  be  in 
shape  to  take  advantage  of  any  opportunity. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Assuming  that  the  investigation  demonstrates  that  it  is  a  feasible 
project,  could  it  then  be  brought  in  under  the  Smith-McXary  bill,  if  that  bill  has 
become  a  law  in  the  meantime? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Under  its  revolving  feature,  perhaps  a  long  time  in  the  future  that 
would  be  the  case,  but  because  of  its  size  and  the  intense  desire  of  the  people  of  the 
Pacific  Xorthwest — they  hope,  at  least,  that  this  project  can  go  forward  independently. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Is  it  at  all  possible  to  carry  through  this  project  as  a  private  project? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Xo;  that  is  entirely  out  of  the  question. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  Judge  Raker,  your  question  could  be  answered  by  the  legal  maxim, 
"Lex  vigilantibus  non  dormientibus."  [Laughter.] 


50  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  does  not  apply  to  any  particular  case  or  any  of  the  Members  from 

the  West  or  any  of  those  on  this  committee,  because  these  matters  are  pending  and 

have  been  held  in  abeyance  because  there  should  be  some  general  policy  established . 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  That  is  not  the  answer,  Judge.    The  answer  is  that  it  is  a  question 

of  fact  for  the  jury. 

Mr.  RAKER.  No;  that  answers  the  question.  Now,  the  department  has  spent  some 
money;  the  State  of  California  has  spent  some  money  for  the  purpose  of  irrigating 
about  6,000,000  acres  of  land  at  a  cost  of  $150,000,000,  and  we  are  held  up  from  future 
and  proper  examination  which  would  bring  in  10  people  as  compared  to  1  on  any 
other  project  in  the  United  States,  but  the  amount  is  so  large  that  they  have  not  even 
had  a  chance  to  consider  it.  So  the  question  involved  is  whether  or  not  we  are  going 
to  be  tied  up  on  all  of  our  reclamation  business  if  we  start  out  on  separate  projects 
instead  of  giving  to  the  Reclamation  S-ervice  the  opportunity  to  judge  what  ought  to 
be  done.  I  want  you  to  think  about  that. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  is  what  we  are  doing  right  here.  We  are  asking  the  Interior 
Department  to  make  this  investigation. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  I  will  be  plain  about  this.  We  want  the  support  of  you  and  every- 
body else  to  put  enough  money  into  the  reclamation  fund  so  that  these  people  can  do 
the  legitimate  work  that  ought  to  be  done. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  We  agree  with  you,  and  we  have  been  among  the  strongest  supporters 
of  the  Smith-McNary  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  know  you  have. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Do  you  mean  to  say  in  addition  to  that,  other  work  should 
be  done, too? 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  what  I  am  getting  at.  We  want  the  support  of  these  people 
and  others  from  the  West;  we  want  them  to  get  the  help  of  their  eastern  friends  so 
that  we  can  get  enough  money  into  the  reclamation  fund  so  that  the  reclamation 
people  can  do  the  legitimate  work  that  now  needs  doing. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  What  we  want,  what  the  dry  State  fellows  want,  is  more  spread. 
Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Well,  we  will  go  clown  the  line  with  you  100  per  cent  on  that  policy. 
Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  want  to  ask  some  questions  about  the  text  of  this  bill,  because  it  is 
now  noon  and  the  committee  will  have  to  adjourn  very  soon. 

The  bill  provides,  to  begin  with,  that  this  investigation  shall  be  completed  not 
later  than  the  first  day  of  January,  1924.     Can  it  be  done  within  that  time? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  I  think  it  can  be  done  within  that  time. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Then,  the  bill  on  page  2  directs  in  detail  just  what  kind  of  report  shall 
be  made. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Would  you  not  get  along  just  as  well  with  a  very  short  act  appropri- 
ating $100.000  for  an  investigation  of  this  project,  and  let  the  Reclamation  Service 
make  the  investigation  and  submit  a  report  of  what  it  found? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  That  would  probably  lie  very  advantageous  except  for  this  reason,  that 
the  Senate  has  already  passed  this  bill  and  if  we  attempt  to  amend  it  at  this  short 
session  we  might  meet  with  serious  difficulties. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Members  of  the  House  are  not  informed  as  to  just  what  we 
expect  to  accomplish. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Sometimes  I  find  that  as  a  practical  matter  the  more  you  go  into 
details  the  more  likely  you  are  to  raise  doubts  in  the  minds  of  those  that  are  not 
familiar  with  the  subject.  It  takes  just  that  much  longer  to  answer  their  objections. 
After  all.  if  the  bill  provided  that  $100.000  was  to  be  furnished  to  the  Reclamation 
Service  to  investigate  the  Columbia  Basin  project,  and  stopped  right  there,  you  would 
get  every  result  that  you  will  obtain  by  this  longer  bill.  When  you  particularize  if 
you  happen  to  forget  anything,  then  you  will  fail  to  get  a  report  on  that  feature.  In 
other  words,  is  it  not  better  to  pass  general  legislation  with  broad  powers  and  then  let 
the  Reclamation  Service  go  on  and  make  the  investigation? 

Mr.  ADAMS.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  gone  over  this  bill  very  carefully. 
We  agree  with  him  on  the  matter,  and  it  has  been  drawn  at  his  suggestion. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  want  to  ask  one  more  question.     You  stated  that  you  would  irrigate 
approximately  2,000.000  acres  by  the  gravity  system  and  your  secondary  pumping? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Now,  what  do  you  estimate  will  be  the  cost  per  acre? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  To  be  exact,  $144.99. 
Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  includes  secondary  pumping? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  No;  just  gravity. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  How  much  more  will  it  cost  for  secondary  pumping? 
Mr.  ADAMS.  That  has  not  been  figured  by  the  engineers  and  will  be  one  of  the 
things  perhaps  that  this  $100,000  will  be  used  for,  to  make  the  determination. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  51 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  But  the  land  to  be  reclaimed.  Mr.  Sinnott,  is  1.753,000  acres  by 
gravity  alone.  Whatever  the  additional  cost  of  pumping  would  be.  would  be  to 
bring  under  reclamation  additional  acres. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  And  perhaps  with  the  additional  acreage  it  will  probably  mean  a 
decrease  in  the  ultimate  per  acre  cost  rather  than  an  increase. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  think  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  $144.99  is  estimated  to 
carry  a  ditch  to  each  40-acre  tract,  whereas  if  we  only  undertake  to  carry  it  to  lamer 
subdivisions  the  cost  would  be  very  much  less. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Let  me  ask  you  this  question — and  1  would  like  to  have  the  attention 
of  the  chairman — I  want  to  ask  this  question  of  the  witness  and  I  would  like  to  have  the 
chairman  answer  it:  Under  the  present  law  the  Committee  on  the  Budget  and  the 
Appropriations  Committee  would  have  the  power  instead  of  making  this  a  secoudary 
project  appropriation  of  $100.000  to  make  it  $500.000  if  they  so  wished.  Is  that  right, 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  the  unfortunate  thing  about  that  is  that  it  will  come  out  of  the 
reclamation  fund.  We  do  not  want  to  load  down  the  reclamation  fund. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  were  not  talking  about  the  reclamation  fund? 

Mr.  RAKER.  No. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  This  is  limited  by  the  $100.000. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  I  meant  as  the  law  now  stands,  the  Committee  on  Appropriations, 
has  the  law  or  the  power  to  make  any  appropriation  as  to  amount  that  they  see  fit  for 
secondary  projects.  Is  that  correct? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Why  not? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  He  is  talking  abo'ut  money  coming  out  of  the  Treasury ;  he  is  not  talk- 
ing about  money  out  of  the  reclamation  fund. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Appropriations  for  secondary  projects  come  out  of  the  reclamation 
fund ;  we  want  this  to  come  out  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  here  it  is.  Judge:  Supposing  the  Appropriations  Committee 
would  bring  in  an  item  of  $100,000  or  $500.000  to  be  paid  from  the  United  States 
Treasury  for  investigation  purposes;  somebody  would  make  a  point  of  order  that  there 
is  no  law  authorizing  that. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  just  the  point.  They  have  already  in  each  bill  for  the  last 
three  years  brought  in  $100,000. 

Mr.  "SINNOTT.  But  that  is  out  of  the  reclamation  fund;  this  is  out  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  what  I  wanted  straight.  They  have  the  power  now  to  make 
the  appropriation  of  any  sum  they  want  to,  provided  it  comes  out  of  the  reclamation 
fund. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  is  the  way  you  understand  it,  Mr.  Bien? 

Mr.  BIEN.  It  would  reduce  accordingly  the  amount  available  for  construction. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  it  comes  out  of  the  reclamation  fund? 

Mr.  BIEN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  it  has  power  to  make  appropriation  for  this  out  of  the  general 
fund  in  the  Treasury;  we  do  have  a  general  authorization  of  law  for  that  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  From  this  committee,  yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Not  necessarily,  because  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  can  report 
any  sort  of  an  appropriation  it  wishes,  but  if  we  pass  this  sort  of  a  bill  it  will,  in  my 
opinion,  make  it  easier  for  them  to  justify  this  appropriation. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  They  can  put  an  item  in,  but  it  would  be  subject  to  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  meant  was,  it  would  not  be  subject  to  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  shedding  a  little  more  light  on  the  question  asked 
by  Mr.  Hay  den  as  to  whether  this  report  could  be  made  by  January  1,  1924,  when 
Director  Davis  was  before  the  Senate  committee  in  connection  with  this  same  bill,  that 
matter  was  called  to  his  attention,  and  on  page  8  of  the  Senate  hearing  Senator  Jones 
asked: 

"Why  not  make  this  July  1,  1923?" 

Director  Davis  answered:  "That  would  be  right  in  the  middle  of  the  season,  if  any 
field  work  were  being  done.  January  1  is  a  much  more  appropriate  time  for  such  a 
report,  after  the  field  work  is  done." 

Then  Senator  Jones  said:  "Do  you  think  they  ran  make  a  report  by  January  1?" 

Director  DAVIS.  They  can  make  it  by  January  1 ,  1924. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  What  was  the  date  of  that  hearini:? 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  July  10,  1922. 


52  COLUMBIA  BASIN    IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  Six  months  have  since  elapsed.  You  have  lost  six  month?.  Director 
Davis  probably  meant  if  he  could  get  the  money  then,  the  Reclamation  Service  would 
have  a  year  and  a  half  in  which  to  do  the  work;  now  you  have  cut  that  time  down  to  a 
year. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  I  imagine  that  he  made  allowance  for  the  fact  that  this  bill  would 
probably  have  a  tempestuous,  not  to  say  stormy  journey  before  he  got  the  $100.000. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  If  the  $100,000  is  appropriated   by  Congress  within  the  next  three 
months,  then  the  Reclamation  Service  would  have  about  eight  month?  in  which  to 
make  the  report.     If  the  Director  thinks  he  can  do  it,  all  right- 
Mr.  WEBSTER.  He  can  do  it. 

Mr.  BIEN.  I  doubt  if  there  will  be  any  difficulty  in  getting  it  through. 

Mr.  FORD.  The  original  bill,  Judge,  had  the  date  January  1,  1923,  and  the  question 
was  raised  whether  it  was  possible  to  finish  it  by  January  1,  1923.  The  statement  was 
made  that  this  bill  might  not  get  through  the  House  till  the  short  session,  and  Director 
Davis  in  his  testimony — I  do  not  have  the  exact  date — mentioned  that  he  probably 
would  not  be  able  to  begin  work  until  early  in  the  newr  year.  That  is  how  that  date 
was  arrived  at. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  We  have  had  this  experience  in  connection  with  the  Imperial  Valley 
investigation:  There  was  a  definite  date,  the  1st  day  of  December,  when  the  report 
must  be  made.  The  $20,000  was  appropriated  and  that  date  was  set,  as  they  stated 
it  could  be  done  by  that  time.  December  1  date  arrived  and  the  Director  of  the 
Reclamation  Service  had  to  submit  to  Congress  a  preliminary  report  saying  that  there 
had  not  been  time  to  complete  the  field  work.  We  merely  received  a  preliminary 
statement  saying  that  the  work  was  in  progress,  which  contained  no  conclusions  at 
all.  Then,  some  months  afterwards,  a  final  report  was  submitted,  which  did  not 
become  available  for  about  a  year.  The  Reclamation  Service  is  going  to  do  this  work 
as  quickly  as  possible,  and  there  is  no  advantage  in  setting  a  definite  date. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  what  I  wanted  to  do  was  to  get  before  you,  Mr.  Hayden,  and  the 
rest  of  the  committee,  the  advisability  of  general  legislation  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  If  I  had  my  way  about  it  I  would  appropriate  at  least  a  half  million 
dollars  every  year,  so  that  the  Reclamation  Service  could  investigate  all  of  these 
projects. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Why  not  pass  out  of  this  committee  a  bill  authorizing  that  amount? 

Mr.  HAYDEN.  I  will  gladly  vote  for  such  a  bill. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Of  course,  this  is  a  big  thing,  no  doubt  about  that,  and  worthy,  like  all 
the  rest. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  is  true.  Mr.  Raker,  but  we  all  have  big  things  in  our  States. 

Mr.  RAKER.  We  were  able  12  years  ago  to  present  a  resolution  to  the  National 
Irrigation  Congress  and  had  it  carried— I  was  on  the  committee — and  we  decided  then 
that  we  should  take  the  small  projects  and  we  would  get  more  benefit  out  of  them  than 
we  would  by  taking  the  big  ones,  and  that  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  past  10  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  it  not  likely  that  if  we  pass  a  bill  of  this  kind  we  will  stand  a 
better  chance  of  getting  appropriations  for  other  projects  than  we  would  if  we  came  in 
asking  for  a  large  fund  for  general  investigation? 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  do  not  think  so.  Mr.  Chairman.  I  vote  for  all  these  things.  I 
voted  for  the  Imperial  Valley  and  I  expect  to  vote  for  this,  but  my  people  down  in 
Texas  have  been  going  down  into  their  pockets  and  putting  up  money  for  these  investi- 
gations for  years  without  any  aid  from  the  Federal  Government.  That  doesn't  reflect 
any  credit  on  me  as  their  Representative  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  people  in  my  State  put  up  $10.000  on  one  project  and  the  Re- 
clamation Service  $3,500. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  My  people  have  always  put  up  every  dollar  and  the  Government 
don't  put  up  a  nickel. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  at  the  next  meeting  we  will  take  those  things  up. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Before  you  adjoiirn,  Mr.  Chairman,  since  Director  Davis  is  not  here, 
I  should  like  to  ask  permission  to  make  part  of  these  hearings  his  testimony  before  the 
Senate  committee  on  this  bill. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  He  will  be  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  we  do  not  have  an  opportunity  of  hearing  the  director  I  think 
that  would  be  proper. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  I  understand  that  Director  Davis  will  return  to  Washington  Sunday. 

Mr.  BIEN.  He  left  Los  Angeles  on  the  5th. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  we  may  be  able  to  have  him  before  the  committee  soon. 
Mr.  RAKER.  I  think  we  had  better  have  him,  don't  you? 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  I  think  so. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Then  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  make  his  statement  a  part  of  the 
record . 


COLUMBIA  BASIN    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  53 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  we  do  not  have  the  opportunity  of  hearing  him,  we  can  incor- 
porate his  statement  in  the  record. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  also  have  here  two  short  resolutions  relative  to  this 
bill,  one  adopted  by  the  national  convention  of  the  Farmers'  Educational  and  Cooper- 
ative Union  of  America,  Lynchburg,  Va.,  November,  1922,  a  short  resolution  indorsing 
the  project;  and  one  from  the  national  headquarters  of  the  American  Legion.  I  would 
like  to  have  those  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN-.  Without  objection  the  resolutions  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

(The  resolutions  referred  to  follow:) 

RESOLUTION  ADOPTED  BY  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  OF  THE  FARMERS   EDUCATIONAL   AND 
COOPERATIVE  UNION  OF  AMERICA,  LYNCHBURG,  VA.,  NOVEMBER,   1922. 

The  farmers  of  the  United  States  recognize  that  orderly  marketing  and  distribution 
constitute  the  largest  problems  of  the  farmers  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  organization  in  asking  Congress  for  appropriations  to 
increase  production  beyond  the  point  where  consumption  would  make  it  impossible 
for  the  farmers  to  derive  a  profit  from  their  labors. 

The  normal  increase  in  the  population  of  the  United  States  from  birth  rates  over 
death  rates  is  approximately  a  million  and  a  quarter  a  year.  It  should  be  the  object 
of  American  farmers  as  well  as  the  American  Congress  to  look  at  the  problems  in 
reclaiming  lands  from  a  broad,  national  scope  and  to  meet  the  needs  of  increased 
population  of  the  United  States  and  to  provide  an  opportunity  to  secure  homes  for 
those  Avho  desire  to  till  the  soil. 

The  homes  of  many  thousands  of  farmers  in  the  State  of  Washington  are  greatly  in 
need  of  water  for  irrigation  purposes.  To  assist  our  farmers  in  that  section  of  the 
country  and  to  reclaim  new  and  fertile  areas  for  agricultural  production,  we  ask  the 
National  House  of  Representatives  to  concur  in  the  appropriation  of  $100,000  pro- 
viding for  the  survey  of  the  Columbia  River  Basin  project  which  has  already  been 
approved  by  the  Senate. 

Adopted  unanimously. 

RESOLUTION    ADOPTED     BY    THE     FOURTH     NATIONAL    CONVENTION    OF    THE    AMERICAN- 
LEGION,   NEW  ORLEANS,   LA.,   OCTOBER  16-20,   1922. 

Whereas  there  are  now  in  the  United  States  millions  of  acres  of  swamp,  waste,  and 
arid  land  that  can  be  reclaimed  and  made  available  for  settlement:  Now,  therefore 
be  it 

Resolved.  That  the  American  Legion  in  convention  assembled  go  on  record  as  favor- 
ing the  immediate  and  speedy  enactment  of  legislation  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  having  for  its  object  and  purpose  the  reclaiming  of  such  swamp,  waste,  and  arid 
lands;  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  That  such  legislation  provide,  as  had  been  the  policy  in  the  past,  that  the 
ex-service  men  and  women  of  this  country  be  given  preferential  rights  in  the  settle- 
ment of  such  lands  when  they  have  been  reclaimed;  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  American  Legion  indorses  and  approves  the  plans  submitted  to 
Congress  for  the  lending  of  Federal  aid  to  the  reclamation  of  arid  lands  and  the  drainage 
of  swamps,  such  as  the  Columbia  Basin  project,  the.Colorado  River,  the  Shoshone  and 
Platte  River  projects,  the  recovery  of  waste,  swamp  lands  in  Florida  and  Louisiana, 
and  other  similar  prohjects,  and  urges  that  Congress  speedily  enact  legislation  where- 
by the  vast  amount  of  land  included  therein  may  soon  be  made  productive,  and  thus 
provide  employment  and  opportunity  for  ex-service  men  to  establish  themselves  in 
homes  and  participate  in  the  development  of  the  great  resources  of  this  country. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Chairman,  before  you  adjourn,  just  one  sentence — I  do  not 
know  whether  Mr.  Adams  has  concluded. 

Mr.  ADAMS.  Yes;  unless  there  are  some  further  questions. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  The  question  has  been  raised  as  to  the  possibility  of  speculation 
and  actual  settlers  being  held  up  on  this  proposed  project.  I  want  to  show  what  has 
been  done  by  the  State  of  Washington  through  the  Columbia  Basin  Survey  Commis- 
sion to  prevent  speculation  and  protect  the  actual  settler.  This  language  is  found 
on  page  29  of  their  report: 

"It  is  difficult  to  find  any  justification  for  asking  a  higher  price  for  the  raw.  unde- 
veloped land  than  the  first-mentioned  values  of  $3  to  $5  per  acre." 

Then  in  italics  they  have:  "  The  other  costs  accrue  against  the  actual  settler  and  farmer 
on  the  land,  and  he  should  not  pay  more  per  acre  than  the- few  dollars  mentioned.'1 


54  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IEEIGATIOX   PROJECT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  Doctor,  if  you  will  just  get  your  district  formed  and  get  a  written 
contract  from  those  people  and  get  it  on  record,  then  you  have  got  something  to 
start  with. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  But,  Judge  Raker,  you  can  not  do  those  things  in  the  preliminary 
stage,  but,  of  course,  that  can  be  done  before  this  comes  up  to  the  stage  of  construc- 
tion or  of  asking  for  an  appropriation  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  think  that  is  very  well  put,  Doctor. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  stand  adjourned. 

(Whereupon,  at  12.20  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


COMMITTEE  ON  IRRIGATION  OP  ARID  LANDS, 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Wednesday,  December  13,  1922. 

The  committee  met  at  10  o'clock  a.  m.,  Hon.  Addison  T.  Smith  (chairman)  pre- 
siding. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.  The  members  of  the  com- 
mittee, I  am  sure,  will  be  interested  in  knowing  that  we  have  as  a  new  member  of 
this  committee,  Mr.  A.  R.  Humphrey,  until  recently  the  very  efficient  clerk  of  the 
committee,  who  was  in  November  elected  as  the  successor  of  our  late  lamented  and 
beloved  chairman,  Judge  Kinkaid,  of  the  eighth  Nebraska  district. 

We  will  resume  the  hearings  this  morning  on  the  Columbia  River  Basin  bill,  and 
the  Director  of  the  Reclamation  Service,  Mr.  A.  P.  Davis,  will  occupy  the  attention  of 
the  committee. 

STATEMENT  OF  MB.  ARTHUR  P.  DAVIS,  DIRECTOR,  UNITED  STATES 
RECLAMATION  SERVICE. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the  bill  that  I  under- 
stand is  under  discussion  by  this  committee  is  one  providing  for  an  investigation  of 
the  so-called  Columbia  Basin  project  for  the  irrigation  of  large  tracts  of  land  shown 
on  this  map  from  the  waters  of  the  Columbia  River  and  its  tributaries.  The  Columbia 
River,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  largest  river  of  the  arid  region,  one  of  the  great  rivers  of 
the  world  with  a  very  large  discharge,  with  a  large  fall  and  enormous  possibilities  of 
power  development  and  irrigation.  It  is  a  river  that  is  interstate;  it  is  international, 
and  it  is  navigable.  For  all  of  these  reasons,  as  well  as  the  magnitude  of  the  develop- 
ment of  that  section,  it  is  distinctly  a  national  project,  one  of  national  interest,  and 
on  account  of  its  interstate,  international,  and  navigational  features  can  be  properly 
handled  only  under  national  authority.  Incidentally  its  proper  development  is  of 
such  magnitude  that,  at  least  so  far  as  irrigation  is  concerned,  it  is  an  essentially 
national  problem.  It  strikes  me,  therefore,  that  it  is  proper  and  appropriate  that  the 
bill  proposed  here  should  pass  providing  for  a  national  investigation  of  the  project. 

It  is  one  which  is  not  by  any  means  unknown,  as  considerable  investigation  has 
already  been  made.  The  first  decided  attention  which  the  river  received  from  an 
irrigation  standpoint  as  a  whole,  I  believe,  was  from  the  Reclamation  Service  about 
the  year  1903.  Nearly  20  years  ago  there  was  an  application  for  power  development 
below  Lake  Coeur  d'Alene  on  the  Spokane  River,  and  that  was  referred  to  the  Reclama- 
tion Service  to  find  out  whether  it  would  interfere  with  irrigation  development.  It 
is  physically  possible  M  divert  the  Spokane  River  from  the  outlet  of  the  Coeur  d'Alene 
to  a  large  portion  of  this  basin.  In  order  to  answer  the  questions  that  were  asked  of 
the  Reclamation  Service  at  that  time  a  reconnaissance  was  made  which  developed 
that  there  was  an  immense  amount  of  irrigable  land  in  that  area  which  could  be 
covered. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  At  that  time  the  project  was  known  as  the  Big  Bend  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  believe  it  was.     The  region  here  [indicating  on  map]  is  sometimes 
known  as  the  Big  Bend,  where  the  Columbia  River  makes  a  big  bend. 
.Mr.  RAKER.  Where  is  the  lake  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Lake  Coeur  d'Alene,  in  Idaho.  That  project  contemplated  irrigation  of 
this  same  land  but  otherwise  it  is  not  the  same  project.  That  is,  the  source  of  water 
supply  is  different.  At  that  time  the  Reclamation  Service  decided  as  a  result  of  its 
reconnaissance  that  the  physical  and  financial  condition  did  not  justify  the  with- 
holding of  permits  to  develop  power  on  the  Spokane  River.  First,  the  project  was 
entirely  too  large  to  be  ever  undertaken  with  the  funds  available  under  the  Reclama- 
tion Service.  It  was  expensive  and  probably  would  not  be  developed  for  many 
years  to  come,  and  it  was  not  considered  justifiable  to  withhold  natural  resources  for 
the  purpose  of  this  development  from  power  development.  So  that  the  power 
development  went  ahead,  and  many  power  plants  have  been  constructed  on  the 
Spokane  River  and  they  are  now  delivering  power  to  that  region. 


COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  55 

But  this  project  is  a  different  one.  The  same  land  largely  is  involved  but  it  pro- 
poses to  take  water  from  the  Pend  Oreille  River.  It  includes  this  part  marked  in  red 
on  the  map;  it  includes  the  dam  built  to  divert  the  water,  the  coulees,  the  channel 
work,  etc.,  to  get  the  water  down  to  the  required  distance  to  the  point  of  diversion 
in  the  conduit,  about  130  or  140  miles. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  do  you  mean  by  coulees? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  a  local  name  for  a" little  stream — 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  a  local  name.     It  is  a  general  name  for  a  small  ravine. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  call  it  local  because  it  is  used  locally.     It  is  a  French  word. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  it  in  southern  Idaho. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  means  the  same  thing  as  the  arroyo  in  the  southwest,  which  was 
settled  by  the  Spanish.  The  word  coulee  is  used  in  a  section  that  was  settled  by  the 
French. 

The  Reclamation  Service  at  one  time  investigated  the  possibility  of  irrigation  in 
the  southern  portion  of  this  same  tract  from  the  waters  of  the  Palouee  River  by  tun- 
neling, etc.,  and  due  to  various  reasons  that  project  was  not  taken  up.  It  was  an 
expensive  one  and  involved  some  difficulties  which  by  comparison  with  other  projects 
presented  at  the  same  time  led  to  its  rejection.  The  tract  which  was  proposed  to  be 
irrigated  under  the  Palouse  project  is  now  included  in  the  tract  shown  on  this  map 
and  denominated  the  Columbia  Basin  project,  but  that  was  only  a  small  project. 

The  Columbia  River,  as  I  have  stated,  has  upon  it  great  power  possibilities  both 
upon  the  river  itself  and  upon  its  tributaries.  Due  to  that  fact  permits  have  been 
requested  from  the  Federal  Power  Commission  for  license  to  develop  power  on  that 
stream.  The  Federal  Power  Commission  in  its  early  history  adopted  a  policy  by  which 
on  any  large  stream  they  would  not  issue  permits  or  licenses  for  the  development  of 
power  until  they  had  made  such  general  inyestigation  as  would  satisfy  them  that  in 
doing  so  they  were  not  curtailing  or  destroying  natural  resources,  so  that  the  permits 
could  be  issued  in  such  a  way  that  they  would  not  interfere  unduly  with  irrigation  or 
with  the  best  use  of  the  water  for  power  or  for  any  other  purposes.  Following  that 
policy  the  commission,  when  permits  were  issued  for  the  Des  Chutes  River  in  Oregon, 
requested  that  a  committee  be  appointed  consisting  of  one  member  appointed  by  the 
Reclamation  Service,  one  member  appointed  by  the  Army  Engineers,  and  one  ap- 
pointed by  the  Geological  Survey.  That  board  examined  in  detail  the  various  possible 
developments  of  the  Des  Chutes  River  and  reported  what  policies  were  best  for  the 
development  of  this  river.  I  understand  the  policies  of  the  commission  are  being 
shaped  accordingly. 

Immediately  after  the  rendition  of  that  report  the  problem  presented  to  the  Federal 
Power  Commission  concerning  the  Columbia  River  became  important  and  some  per- 
mits were  applied  for  and  a  similar  question  arose  concerning  the  Columbia  River. 
In  obedience  to  a  request  from  the  Federal  Power  Commission,  the  Reclamation 
Service  appointed  one  member  of  a  board,  the  Army  engineers  appointed  the  same 
member  which  had  served  on  the  Deschutes  River  Board,  and  the  Geological  Survey 
appointed  the  same  member.  The  States  of  Montana,  Idaho,  and  Washington  were 
invited  to  appoint  members,  and  they  did  so.  That  formed  a  board  of  six  persons, 
who  were  representative  of  these  different  organizations  I  have  mentioned  and  the 
three  States  involved.  They  have  submitted  to  the  Federal  Power  Commission  a 
report,  and  because  of  its  bearing  on  this  subject  I  wish  to  present  the  testimony  and 
recommendation  of  the  Federal  Power  Commission,  which  is  to  the  effect  that  such  an 
examination  as  is  now  proposed  is  advisable  and  feasible. 

Mr.  RAKER.  When  was  this  report  made,  Mr.  Davis? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  report  was  rendered  in  June  of  this  year.  It  was  delivered  in 
June.  In  addition  to  the  gravity  project  there  is  the  possibility  of  irrigating  the  lands 
of  the  Columbia  Basin  project  by  the  construction  of  a  pumping  plant  at  the  Grand 
Coulee  at  this  point.  It  would  require  a  dam  about  200  feet  and  a  pump  lift  of  400 
feet  to  deliver  water  into  the  Grand  Coulee,  which  is  supposed  to  be  an  old  channel 
for  the  Columbia  River,  and  from  that  the  water  could  be  diverted  on  this  same  land, 
but  would  not  cover  it  all,  from  that  one  pumping  plant  to  this  area. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  do  these  two  methods  of  supplying  the  water  to  this  land 
compare  from  an  economic  standpoint? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  question  I  am  not  able  to  answer,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  in  that  con- 
nection I  would  like  to  read  a  paragraph.  The  Columbia  River  Board  of  the  Federal 
Power  Commission  made  a  careful  study  of  that,  and  their  conclusion  was  as  follows: 

"This  board  is  not  prepared  to  express  on  the  immediate  feasibility  of  a  Columbia 
Basin  project,  but  considers  it  evident  that  if  the  project  is  not  feasible  now  rising 
land  values  will  render  it  so  in  the  future,  and  that  its  economical  importance  is  rela- 
tivelv  greater  than  that  of  the  power  which  it  may  destroy.  It  is  further  believed  that 
satisfactory  information  is  not  now  at  hand  to  justify  a  final  decision  on  the  method 


56  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

of  irrigating  the  Columbia  Basin  or  even  on  the  best  location  for  the  dam  for  a  pumping 
project  that  will  be  to  the  best  interest  of  the  public.  This  board  feels  that  the  pump- 
ing and  the  gravity  methods  of  supply  have  each  their  strong  and  their  weak  features, 
but  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  project  investigation,  upon  which  to  date  less  than  10 
cents  per  acre  has  been  expended,  has  not  gone  nearly  far  enough  to  permit  a  con- 
vincing decision,  especially  considering  that  the  adoption  of  the  gravity  project  may 
result  in  the  permanent  destruction  of  about  650.000  all-year  E.  H.  P.,  nearly  400.000 
of  which  is  located  in  the  State  of  Washington." 

Mr.  RAKER.  Has  this  report  been  printed? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Xo,  sir:  it  has  not  been  printed.  I  understand  it  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  Public  Printer  now. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  going  to  say,  if  it  has  not  been  printed  it  would  be  very  valuable 
to  print  it  in  connection  with  this  hearing. 

Mr.  D.YVIS.  I  am  not  undertaking  to  indorse  or  condemn  either  the  statement  or 
the  opinion  of  this  board,  but  I  do  consider  it  is  a  high  authority  that  testifies  to  the 
necessity  of  the  investigation  of  this  project. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  are  the  storage  facilities  for  power  in  the  Columbia  Basin? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  storage  facilities  at  Pend  Oreille  Lake,  Priest  Lake,  and  Flat- 
head  Lake.  All  of  these  drain  into  the  Columbia  River.  There  are  power  plants 
along  the  Columbia  Basin  depending  not  alone  on  the  fall  available  at  this  point  but 
upon  the  reliable  steady  flow  of  water.  If  the  gravity  li ne  is  built,  it  diverts  the  water 
from  the  Pend  Oreille  River  near  the  Washington-Idaho  line.  That  river  does  not 
furnish  enough  water  during  the  late  summer  in  its  natural  state  for  the  development 
of  this  project,  and  the  necessary  storage  can  be  provided  at  these  two  lakes.  Pend 
Oreille  Lake  is  most  available  for  this  purpose,  and  that,  taken  in  conjunction  with 
either  Priest  Lake  or  Flathead  Lake,  will  furnish  ample  supply  for  this  purpose.  The 
proposed  diversion  will  reduce  the  natural  flow  in  the  Pend  Oreille  River  and  in  all 
parts  of  the  Columbia  River  below  that  point. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  what  extent  would  it  reduce  the  natural  flow? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  By  the  diversion. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  what  portion  of  the  annual  flow  would  be  diverted? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  about  23,000  second-feet. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  whether  the  establishment  of  the 
gravity  system  would  take  out  of  the  Pend  Oreille  or  the  Columbia  such  a  quantity 
of  water  as  would  make  it  impossible  to  build  power  sites. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  a  matter  of  opinion.  I  think  I  can  quote  you  right  now  con- 
flicting authorities  on  that  same  subject.  If  you  take  all  the  water  in  the  Pend 
Oreille  River,  it  would  not  be  sufficient. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  other  words,  the  storage  water  on  Lake  Pend  Oreille  or  Flathead 
Lake  would  not  be  sufficient  to  irrigate  this  land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  that  water  runs  there  naturally.  Of  course  the  water  can  be 
stored  in  these  three  lakes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then,  if  that  is  the  case,  why  would  there  be  any  possibility  of 
power  development  being  destroyed,  as  suggested? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  what  I  am  coming  to.     It  is  quite  a  long  story. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  we  will  let  you  go  right  along. 

Mr.  SI.VXOTT.  The  testimony  the  other  day  was  that  on  the  others  it  would  r;-qu're 
23,000  second  feet  to  irrigate  the  project. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes:  and  that,  supplemented  by  storage  water,  does  not  take  all  the 
water  from  the  Columbia  River. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  to  meet  up  with  the  Canadian  contingencies,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  it  is  also  to  preserve  the  power  possibilities,  to  make  that  much 
available  on  both  sides. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  All  of  them  will  be  reported  upon  by  this  investigation? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  and  that  is  referred  to  in  this  report  of  the  Federal  Power  Com- 
mission. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  With  this  minimum  supply  provided  for,  it  could  not  interfere  with 
primary  development. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  am  coming  to  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Suppose  we  allow  the  director  to  go  ahead  and  make  his  own  state- 
ment and  then  we  can  ask  him  questions. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.     I  think  we  can  gain  time  in  that  way. 

Now,  if  a  dam  is  built  on  the  Columbia  River,  at  the  head  of  the  Grand  Coulee,  the 
water  would  be  intercepted  from  all  the  drainage  above  that.  Xo  storage,  or  very 
slight  storage  is  required,  if  that  is  done,  to  furnish  water  for  this  purpose,  because  of  the 
very  large  flow  of  the  Columbia  River.  I  think  no  storage  is  required,  but  that  is  not 
fully  admitted.  However,  a  little  storage  might  be  advisable,  but  it  is  relatively  very 
small. 


COLUMBIA  BASIX    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  57 

Now.  that  means,  ingeneral.  that  the  storage  in  those  three  lakes  would  not  be  re- 
quired for  this  irrigation  project  because  there  is  enough  without.  It  means  that  stor- 
age that  is  available  in  these  magnificent  reservoirs  would  become  available  for  power 
purposes,  and  every  power  site  on  that  river  below  that  point  on  the  Columbia  and  its 
tributaries,  including  the  Grand  Coulee,  would  receive  the  benefit  of  that  storage. 
That  means  that  the  power  development  on  the  Columbia  River  and  its  tributaries 
would  yield  650.000  more  horsepower  than  it  would  without  it,  if  that  storage  was  used 
for  irrigation. 

Now.  that  is  the  testimony  of  this  board.  It  is  not  mine.  I  am  simply  quoting, 
Mr.  Chairman.  But  this  is  a  public  document  on  which  a  large  amount  of  labor  has 
been  employed  and  I  think  the  board  is  entitled  to  its  opinions.  That  statement  that 
The  additional  power  then  would  be  available  applies  only  to  the  Columbia  River 
down  to  the  mouth  of  the  Snake  River  and  does  not  include  some  power  sites  of  doubt- 
ful feasibility,  nor  anything  below  the  mouth  of  the  Snake  River,  as  I  understand  the 
tabulation  of  the  board. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  You  mean  they  did  not  report  on  anything  below? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  have  tabulated,  but  they  did  riot  go  any  further  than  Priest  Rap- 
ids. The  power  site  at  Priest  Rapids  and  all  of  those  above  that  were  considered  feas- 
ible are  listed  in  there,  showing  how  they  arrived  at  650,000  horsepower.  They  did 
not  go  below  that  point. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  But  the  investigation  proposed  could  cover  anything  below? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  think  so. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Do  you  not  think  it  should  cover  everything  below? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  it  is  desirable  to  leave  whoever  is  in  charge  of  this  investigation 
as  wide  authority  as  possible. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  bringing  the  water  by  gravity  along  the  line  between 
Idaho  and  Washington  and  taking  it  by  pump  at  the  Grand  Coulee,  there  is  a  difference 
of  about  650,000  horsepower  saved  by  \irtue  of  pumping  it  out  of  the  Grand  Coulee 
River. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  the  conclusion  reached  by  this  board.  It  has  been  criticized 
by  one  member  of  the  board  and  he  has  submitted  a  minority  report  which  is  all  in 
here. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  that  take  in  the  investigation  of  all  the  power  projects  and  the 
irrigation  development  of  that  river  in  all  its  branches  from  Priest  Rapids? 

Mr.  DAVIS.     All  the  principle  ones  that  they  considered  feasible  and  important. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  the  territory  that  is  marked  off  there  on  the  map  include  the 
watershed  of  the  Columbia  River? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  not  like  to  say  that  those  conclusions  include  all  the  power  sites 
in  the  basin.  They  only  affect  those  that  the  storage  would  bring  into  discussion. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  all  this  discussion  pertains  to,  that  all  this  water  from  the  water- 
shed goes  into  the  river  and  it  is  affected  in  that  respect. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No:  a  great  deal  of  this  drainage  comes  into  the  Spokane  River,  in  the 
Coeur  d'Alene  River,  and  in  other  ways.  The  question  under  discussion  is  the 
effect  of  this  storage  and  of  course  it  applies  only  to  the  streams  that  can  be  fed  by 
that  storage.  Anything  above  them  would  not  be  affected  by  what  we  are  discussing 
To-day.  The  only  -virtue  that  is  claimed  for  the  gravity  project  is  that  it  leaves  these 
magnificient  storage  reservoirs— which  are  very  large,  very  cheap,  and  very  efficient — 
for  the  sole  use  of  power.  Now,  that  means  that  more  power  can  be  developed  than 
for  anything  else. 

Mr. "RAKER.  I  want  to  ask  you,  from  your  understanding,  whether  or  not  this 
commission,  known  as  the  Power  Commission  for  the  basin,  took  into  account  the 
amount  of  water  and  its  relative  use  for  irrigation  and  power,  as  it  is  marked  on  this 
map,  relative  to  the  watersheds,  to  Flathead  Lake,  Pend  Oreille  Lake,  and  Priest 
Lake,  and  also  in  connection  with  the  intake  of  this  canal  as  well  as  the  Grand  Coulee 
diversion  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  They  undoubtedly  took  into  consideration  all  of  the  elements  affecting 
this  conclusion.  Just  what  their  mental  processes  were  I  do  not  know,  nor  have  I 
freshly  in  mind  their  entire  course  of  reasoning.  It  has  been  some  months  since  I 
read  this  report,  but  I  reviewed  it  hurriedly  last  night.  I  read  it  more  carefully  last 
July  and  August. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  this  report  show  the  facts  upon  which  they  drew  their  conclusions? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  yes;  it  shows  the  flow  of  the  stream,  certainly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  the  final  report  or  a  reconnaissance? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  the  final  report  of  this  board.  That  is,  it  covers  the  subjects 
referred  to  this  board.  The  board  had  before  it  the  question  of  what  was  the  best 
use  of  the  Columbia  River  in  order  to  guide  the  Federal  Power  Commission  in  issuing 
licenses.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  wish  anything  that  I  have  said  to  be  regarded 


58  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

as  conclusive  on  any  point  except  the  one  point  that  is  under  discussion,  whether 
or  not  this  project  ought  to  be  investigated  as  a  national  enterprise.  It  is  my  conclu- 
sion that  it  should  be  and  I  am  giving  you  the  reasons.  I  am  not  giving  my  conclusion 
nor  the  conclusion  of  anybody  else  concerning  the  advisability  of  the  pumping  or 
projects. 


Mr.  HUDSPETH.  I  understand  you  have  been  on  this  project  personally? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  I  have  visited  the  dam  site  on  the  Columbia  River  and  I 
have  visited  the  diversion  site  there  with  this  idea  in  mind,  and  I  passed  along  the 
most  accessible  and  interesting  points  of  this  system,  including  the  ends  of  the  tunnels 
and  all  the  dam  sites.  I  spent  a  day  and  a  half  in  driving  over  the  project.  Previous 
to  that,  however,  I  had  seen  a  great  deal  of  the  land.  I  went  over  the  project  proposed 
to  be  irrigated  from  the  Palouse  River  and  over  the  project  proposed  to  be  irrigated 
from  the  Snake  River.  In  traveling  over  that  land  and  looking  at  it  I  formed  the 
opinion  that  land  as  magnificent  in  possibilities  as  that  land  must  be  at  some  time 
watered  if  there  is  a  possibility  of  doing  it.  It  is  the  largest  and  in  every  respect  one 
of  the  most  ambitious  irrigation  projects  now  before  us.  I  agree  with  the  board  that 
if  it  can  not  be  considered  feasible'  to-day  it  will  soon  become  so,  and  that  the  matter 
should  be  handled  in  such  a  way  as  to  preserve  the  natural  resources  to  the  best  ad- 
vantage so  that  we  may  get  the  most  out  of  them.  As  I  understand  it,  that  is  the 
purpose  of  this  bill,  and  to  my  mind  it  is  a  very  wise  and  statesmanlike  proposition 
to  have  this  whole  matter  investigated  at  the  present  time,  and  then  in  the  light  of  the 
information  available  Congress  can  take  such  action  as  seems  wise. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  is  rather  a  large  question  there.  Taking  the  examination  that 
was  made  of  the  Big  Bend  project,  the  examination  made  by  the  State  of  Washington 
and  the  adjoining  States,  the  data  that  has  been  gathered  and  the  report  you  have 
here,  and  then  there  were  a  couple  of  smaller  projects  which  have  been  thoroughly 

examined 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Palouse  project  and  the  Snake  River  project;  yes,  sir. 
Mr.  RAKER.  Just  where  is  the  data  lacking,  if  that  is  all  put  in  proper  shape  and 
form? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  many  things  that  are  investigated  in  a  broad  way  only. 
That  investigation  was  largely  of  the  main  canal  which  required  a  large  amount  of 
consideration  in  order  to  shed  the  maximum  amount  of  light  on  its  feasibility.  It 
was  investigated  wisely  and  accurately  so  far  as  the  funds  were  available,  but  when 
it  came  to  the  distribution  system,  the  area  was  very  large  and  a  large  portion  of  it 
was  lumped  in  at  a  rough  estimate  per  acre. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  has  since  been  provided  for  by  examination  acre  for  acre? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  the  detailed  surveys  have  not  been  made  of  the  distribution 
system. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  thought  they  had  been  made. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir.  Some  of  the  main  laterals  have  been,  but  the  distribution 
system  has  not  been  examined  into  to  the  full  extent,  because  that  would  be  impossible 
with  the  amount  of  money  available.  The  last  investigation  was  devoted  mainly 
to  the  investigation  of  the  dam  site  at  the  head  of  the  Grand  Coulee.  Additional 
borings  should  be  made  in  that  vicinity.  Also  at  the  tunnel  sites. 

Mr.  WILLIAMSON.  This  investigation  is  for  the  purpose  of  outlining  the  necessary 
canals  and  laterals  so  as  to  determine  the  final  feasibility  of  the  project  as  an  irrigation 
undertaking? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  as  I  understand  it.  Of  course,  that  is  not  detailed  in  the  bill 
and  not  having  drawn  the  bill  I  do  not  know  just  exactly  what  is  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  did  draw  the  bill,  but  I  think  that  would  be  a  wise  purpose.  One  of  the  things 
recommended  by  this  commission  is  to  make  some  further  comparison  of  the  merits 
of  the  pumping  and  gravity  projects.  That  required  this  detailed  investigation 
that  I  speak  of,  and  for  this  reason,  that  canals  coming  here  will  run  in  this  way  [indi- 
cating on  map],  canals  running  here  will  come  in  the  opposite  direction,  and  the 
pumping  project  not  haying  any  head  or  fall  to  spare,  they  have  proposed  building 
these  canals  on  a  much  lighter  grade. 

Mr.  RAKER.  General  Goethals  was  before  the  committee  and  he  left  the  impression 
with  me,  and  I  think  with  Mr.  Hudspeth,  that  all  the  examination  from  the  intake 

where  the  beginning  point  is 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Albany  Falls. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Including  the  gravity  system  as  well  as  the  Grand  Coulee  diversion, 
with  the  ditches  made  and  the  laterals  on  the  line,  had  been  investigated  by  him 
thoroughly  with  sufficient  surveys,  and  all  the  information  that  he  desired  or  any- 
one else  would  desire  was  that  which  related  to  the  storage  of  the  waters  of  Pend 
Oreille  Lake,  Priest  Lake,  and  Flathead  Lake.  How  did  he  get  that? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  I  have  not  read  General  Goethals's  testimony. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  59 

Mr.  SUMNERS.  I  would  like  to  say  as  one  member  of  the  committee  that  I  under- 
stood from  General  Goethals's  testimony  that  there  were  many  other  problems  besides 
these;  that  these  were  things  to  be  determined  but  there  were  many  others. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  should  have  stated  that  the  details  of  the  storage  "pro  visions  there 
are  also  important  and  ought  to  be  covered  by  this  appropriation  if  it  is  possible  to 
cover  them  thereby.  There  is  possibly  more  storage  in  those  three  lakes  than  is 
necessary  for  the  gravity  project.  Just  how  much  should  be  developed  and  whether 
two  or  three  lakes  should  be  developed  is  a  question  that  should  be  studied. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Are  you  able  to  give  us  any  idea  as  to  the  details  of  any  engi- 
neering problems  that  are  yet  to  be  solved  out  of  this  investigation? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  what  I  have  been  trying  to  do  for  the  last  10  minutes. 
Mr.  LEATHERWOOH.  I  confess  that  I  have  the  same  idea  that  the  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  of  the  table  has.  that  the  engineering  problems  have  been  largely  worked 
«>ut  and  that  the  problem  is  largely  one  of  climatic  and  soil  questions. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  have  an  excellent  illustration  of  how  similar  climatic  conditions 
will  affect  the  situation  and  that  is  in  the  Yakima  Valley.  You  will  find  those  con- 
ditions in  different  parts  of  this  project  just  as  they  are  in  the  Yakima  Valley.  Of 
course,  a  more  detailed  study  plight  be  given  to  them,  and  also  some  details  would 
be  desirable  concerning  the  soil  survey  which  would  add  to  our  information  on  the 
subject  and  lead  to  a  more  accurate  classification  of  the  land.  This  is  not  said  by 
way  of  criticism  of  any  of  the  investigations  that  have  been  made,  because  this  has 
necessarily  been  of  a  reconnaissance  nature  so  far  as  the  soil  is  concerned,  except 
where  it  is  covered  by  a  detailed  survey  of  the  Bureau  of  Soils.  The  results  are 
widely  different  in  character.  Some  soils  may  be  sandy  and  others  may  not  be. 
Those  details  require  considerable  time  and  money  to  work  out,  but  they  are  desirable 
to  have  for  many  reasons.  I  think  there  is  no  question  but  what  a  properly  con- 
stituted authority  in  charge  of  this  project  would  find  plenty  to  do.  I  have  never 
found  a  project  yet  of  this  magnitude  that  did  not  require  a  good  deal  more  expend- 
iture upon  it  than  was  originally  contemplated. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOP.  Is  there  any  dispute  but  what  that  land  is  fertile  if  water  is  put 
upon  it?  A  soil  examination  would  only  go  to  the  particular  crop  that  it  might  be 
adapted  to. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  two  or  three  other  important  points  that  would  be  brought  out. 
The  classification  that  has  already  been  made  ruled  out  a  large  portion  of  the  land  that 
could  be  covered  by  gravity.  I  was  reading  in  the  report  last  night  that  considerable 
of  that  soil  had  been  excluded .  You  see  these  vast  areas  on  the  map  colored  in  yellow. 
Those  outlines  are  in  the  rough.  I  do  not  know  how  detailed  they  are  because  I  am 
not  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  details  of  what  has  been  done  there,  but  I  do  know 
that  the  amount  of  time  and  money  that  has  been  spent  upon  it  is  not  as  great  as  would 
be  desirable  to  get  more  accurately  at  the  acreage  that  should  be  covered:  but  that 
is  not  all.  A  portion  of  this  project  is  sandy  land  with  a  coarse  subsoil  which  requires 
more  water  than  average  soils.  We  should  know  its  outlines  accurately. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Mr.  Davis,  would  a  question  here  interrupt  you  in  the  presentation 
of  your  statement? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  Xo.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  This  project,  from  your  standpoint  and  knowledge,  is  one  that  appeals 
to  anybody  who  knows  anything  about  it  all.  About  how  many  projects,  large  and 
minor,  are  before  your  department  in  which  you  are  seeking  an  investigation?  Could 
you  give  us  any  idea? 

Mr.  DAVIS,  there  are  a  large  number,  as  near  as  I  can  come  to  it,  the  majority  of 
which  are  probably  not  feasible.  But  we  have  frequent  applications  for  investigation 
of  projects  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  including  the  Southern,  Northern,  and  Gulf 
Stites,  and  all  over  the  West. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  While  they  are  not  as  large  as  this  project,  many  of  them  are  just 
as  feasible  and  just  as  desirable  and  would  be  valuable  as  reclamation  projects? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir:  in  proportion  to  the  size. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  a  tract  of  land  containing  five  or  ten  thousand  acres, 
separate  and  independent,  with  water  on  it  and  developed,  is  practically  as  important 
as  the  same  amount  of  land  within  a  large  tract? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  other  things  being  equal,  with  the  soil  and  climatic  conditions 
and  all. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now.  with  that  assumption,  you  have  now  about  $100,000  annually 
for  what  we  call  secondary  projects? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  for  doing  what  we  are  trying  to  get  through  in  this  bill? 
Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 


60  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  why  not  increase  that  to  $500,000  or  $1.000,000  so  that  the  depart- 
ment would  not  be  hampered  and  so  that  the  various  localities  can  present  the  data 
they  have  already  gathered  or  assembled  together  and  your  department  can  continue 
the  investigation  if  it  looks  feasible,  as  is  provided  here? 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  With  the  idea  that  the  ex-service  man  will  not  have  a  long  white 
beard  before  he  gets  on  the  land? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  And  so  the  citizens  will  not  have  long  white  beards  before  they  get 
on  the  land? 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  further,  which  is  not  any  disrespect  to  anybody,  that  the  men 
who  have  given  a  great  deal  of  time  to  the  same  kind  of  work  that  you  are  working  on 
now  will  not  be  wearing  long  beards  and  out  of  an  opportunity  to  do  this  work  by 
reason  of  the  separate  project  as  well  as  the  general  scheme. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  method  of  procedure  would,  of  course,  coA'er  the  ground  and 
answer  the  purpose.  The  procedure  you  suggest  would  vest  a  much  wider  discretion 
in  the  executive  officers  than  appropriations  for  specific  projects. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  all  these  projects  were  started  with  the  discussion 
that  you  speak  of? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  mean  all  the  investigations? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Investigations  and  Government  projects? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  these  members  around  the  board  are  in  a  like  position  that  we 
are,  and  in  the  long  run,  if  you  get  $100.000  to  make  this  investigation,  assuming  that 
it  is  entitled  to  it  from  their  standpoint,  not  a  legal  point  can  be  made  against  it  or  an 
honest  argument.  Now,  will  not  the  same  procedure  have  to  be  had  to  get  it  from  the 
Appropriations  Committee  to  the  general  bill  when  it  goes  in  the  amount  to  be  con- 
sidered for  secondary  projects,  as  it  would  if  this  particular  bill  should  become  a  law? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is,  the  general  rule  would  require  the  same  process? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  you  would  have  to  get  it  from  the  Appropriations  Committee  in 
any  event? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  with  such  a  clamor  that  is  going  on  and  the  splendid  record  that 
is  being  shown,  while  this  bill  looks  good  on  its  face,  when  it  is  seen  by  the  various 
localities  and  States  that  I  could  name,  and  Members  representing  States  that  1  could 
name,  before  it  ever  gets  passed  by  the  House  they  will  say,  "Why,  Columbia  Basin 
has  got  a  hundred  thousand  dollars."  They  will  say,  "What  is  the  matter  with  you? 
Why  don't  you  get  one  for  the  Truckee  or  Baxter  Creek?  We  have  a  hundred  thousand 
acres  out  there.  We  have  another  hundred  thousand  acres  in  the  Flanagan  district.'' 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  If  you  can  convince  anyone  that  this  is  just  as  much  a  national  ques- 
tion as  the  ship  subsidy  and  a  larger  appropriation  should  be  made,  so  that  it  would 
not  be  necessary  to  go  direct  to  Congress  whenever  we  want  five  or  ten  thousand 
dollars  for  an  individual  project,  we  might  accomplish  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  it  not  your  view,  beyond  all  question,  that  if  we  can  get  an  amount 
in  the  general  appropriation  bill  of,  say,  $1,000,000  or  half  a  million  dollars — 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  All  at  one  time;  yes. 

Mr.  RAKER.  If  that  can  be  done,  we  will  get  better  work  and  we  will  be  able  to 
give  our  officers  in  the  Reclamation  Service,  in  whom  we  all  have  confidence,  a  chance- 
to  do  something,  and  we  will  get  something  done,  and  our  western  States  will  be  given 
a  chance  to  accomplish  something? 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Yes;  that  has  always  been  my  opinion. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Now,  Mr.  Raker,  to  answer  the  other  half  of  your  question  about  the 
million-dollar  appropriation  or  the  half-million-dollar  appropriation  to  be  expended 
in  the  discretion  of  the  department,  I  will  say  that  that  amount  would  depend  upon 
the  time  limit.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  advisable  to  appropriate  a  million  dollars 
to  be  used  in  any  one  year,  but  if  the  time  limit  was  removed  that  would  not  be  too 
large  a  sum.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  limit  of  one  year  was  put  upon  the  expenditure 
of  that  amount,  I  think  $500,000  would  be  ample  and  probably  more  than  could  be 
most  wisely  used  in  one  year. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  would  give  you  a  chance  to  investigate  this  project  and  other 
projects  not  as  large  but  of  splendid  merit,  with  the  data  sufficient  to  justify  your 
department  in  going  out  and  making  similar  investigations  with  a  50-50  division? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  would  be  establishing  a  policy  that  we  ought  to  establish, 
would  it  not? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  61 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  that  would  be  an  excellent  policy,  in  my  judgment.  I  would 
like  to  say  this,  however,  that  there  are  very  few  projects  which  present  the  valid 
argument  that  this  one  does  as  being  a  national  problem  for  the  reasons  I  have  stated, 
namely,  first,  it  is  an  international  river;  second,  it  is  an  interstate  river;  third,  it  is  a 
navigable  river,  all  of  which  are  national  problems.  And  then,  furthermore,  its 
magnitude  takes  it  out  of  the  category  of  being  handled  practically  in  a  broad  way  as 
it  should  be,  either  by  private  capital  or  by  the  State.  Therefore  I  say  that  the 
United  States  is  the  only  instrumentality  which  can  properly  handle  this  proposition. 
Those  characteristics  are  not  applicable  to  any  projects  that  I  can  recall  excepting 
two,  and  those  are  the  Colorado  and  the  Rio  Grande,  which  are  both  international 
and  interstate  rivers  and  to  some  extent  navigable,  not  to  the  same  extent  as  the 
Columbia  River,  but  technically  they  are  navigable  rivers.  Congress  has  recognized 
the  interstate,  international,  and  national  character  of  the  Colorado  River  by  the 
appointment  of  a  commission  which  was  charged  with  the  division  of  the  waters  of 
that  river  equitably  between  the  States,  which  commission  has  recently  reached  a 
decision,  of  which  you  have  doubtless  heard  through  the  public  press. 

Mr.  RAKER.  You  say  the  commission  has  reached  a  decision? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  With  reference  to  the  division  of  the  waters  of  the  Colorado  River? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes.  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  has  been  since  the  adjustment  between  those  two  States? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  was  between  the  several  States  and  the  United  States,  which  ol 
course  still  requires  ratification.  It  is  a  remarkable  decision  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
there  has  been  no  compact  to  date  between  so  many  States — 

Mr.  RAKER  (interposing).  Well,  I  want  to  go  into  that  later  and  I  will  ask  you  a 
good  many  questions  about  that  when  we  get  on  the  subject  of  the  Colorado  River. 
But  outside  of  the  international  question,  so  far  as  the  weather,  soil,  and  climatic 
conditions  are  concerned,  the  Marshall  plan  in  California  is  about  the  largest  thing 
on  the  program  to-day,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  believe  it  is  the  largest  thing  on  the  program. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes;  it  is. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  agree  with  you.  The  Marshall  plan  is  not  talked  about  much  any 
more.  However,  it  has  led  to  some  wise  action  on  the  part  of  the  State  of  California 
in  providing  large  funds  to  investigate  its  resources,  and  has  resulted  in  a  wide  move 
on  the  part  of  the  State  engineers,  and  for  initiating  that  move  Mr.  Marshall  is  cer- 
tainly entitled  to  credit. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  The  gentleman  from  Texas  suggests  an  idea  that  I  would 
like  to  mention  briefly  before  you  leave  this  point.  I  believe  I  am  safe  in  assuming 
that  this  committee  is  willing  to  accept  all  the  statements  as  to  the  feasibility  of  this 
proposed  scheme.  However,  from  an  economic  standpoint  would  it  not  be  to  the 
benefit  of  the  arid-land  States  to  have  diversified  sections  scattered  throughout  the 
arid-land  regions  developed,  even  though  they  may  be  smaller  in  area?  Would 
that  not  be  better  than  to  have  the  irrigable  areas  largely  concentrated  in  three  or 
four  localities? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  there  is  something  to  be  said  for  that.  There  are  increasing 
areas  in  the  mining  and  grazing  regions  where  a  smaller  area  can  be  made  of  very 
large  benefit,  due  to  the  saving  in  transportation  of  food  and  forage  products  in  that 
area.  In  general,  I  may  say  that  it  is  desirable  to  have  the  benefits  distributed, 
but  nature  largely  controls  that  for  us.  In  this  case  the  water  supply  and  the  lands 
are  concentrated. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Of  course,  I  base  it  not  upon  any  proposition  that  would  be 
impracticable  but  on  the  theory  that  there  are  a  great  many  places  where  the  land 
would  be  subject  to  irrigation?  " 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  I  agree  with  you  absolutely  on  the  desirability  of  the  development 
of  a  great  many  other  projects.  There  is  no'  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  I  think  it  would  be  very  foolish  for  this  committee  to  take 
attitude  that  some  locality  ought  to  be  irrigated  where  it  is  not  feasible. 

DAVIS.  No;  I  did  not  understand  you  to  mean  that.  But  we  do  not  have  the 
discretion  as  to  whore  irrigation  should  be  developed  because  that  is  fixed  by  nature, 
by  the  supply  of  water,  by  the  availability  of  suitable  land,  and  so  on.  In  some 
respects  there  are  advantages  in  the  concentration  policy  if  it  is  not  top  great. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Let  us  assume  that  all  of  the  territory  within  the  proposed 
project  is  feasible,  and  let  us  assume  further  that  there  are  many  localities  in  the  arid 
land  States  that  are  just  as  feasible,  and  that  the  only  difference  is  that  they  are  much 
smaller  in  area.  Now,  the  thought  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Texas  was  this: 
If  there  are  many  other  smaller  areas  that  are  feasible  from  an  engineering  standpoint, 
and  the  lands  can  be  brought  under  cultivation  by  irrigation,  then  from  an  economic 


my  a 
Mr. 


62  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

standpoint  would  it  not  be  highly  beneficial  to  all  the  arid  land  States  to  have  it 
diversified  rather  than  having  a  large  area  irrigated  and  the  smaller  areas  neglected? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Let  me  see  if  I  understand  the  purport  of  your  question.  You  mean  that 
the  small  widely  distributed  projects  should  be  developed  first  and  that  this  should  be 
rejected  forever? 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Oh,  no;  it  is  just  as  important  that  the  smaller  areas  should  be 

developed • 

Mr.  DAVIS  (interposing).  In  proportion  to  their  size;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  And  that  the  greatest  good  to  the  country  would  be  the  develop- 
ment of  them  altogether  and  not  one  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  agree  with  the  statement  that  you  have  made  entirely  and  I  can  quote 
the  Columbia  Basin  Commission,  which  has  had  charge  of  the  investigation  here,  that 
this  is  a  project  for  the  future,  that  the  smaller  projects,  even  in  their  own  States, 
should  first  be  developed.  That  is,  assuming  an  equivalent  feasibility.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  I  do  not  think  that  needs  very  much  elaboration  because  that  is  the  way  it  is 
going  to  come  anyway.  It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  get  a  large  amount  of  money 
together  such  as  a  big  project  would  require.  It  is  easier  to  get  smaller  projects 
together  under  one  fund.  Now,  I  think  I  can  say  with  some  personal  knowledge, 
after  25  or  30  years'  experience  in  locating  and  developing  projects,  that  every  project 
will  develop  things  that  we  do  not  foresee.  We  are  not  prophets  and  we  can  only  act 
in  the  light  of  our  experience.  In  the  organization  of  a  project  we  have  got  to  contend 
with  many  unknown  factors.  Every  project  contains  some,  and  some  of  the  smaller 
projects  have  been  failures  for  that  reason.  We  have  endeavored  to  reclaim  lands 
that  did  not  hold  water.  Sometimes  we  have  undertaken  development  in  a  region 
that  has  not  sufficiently  arid  land  to  create  a  demand  for  water.  Some  things  will 
develop  in  this  project,  I  do  not  care  how  much  money  you  spend  on  it,  that  you  will 
not  accurately  foresee  in  an  investigation  before  beginning  work.  Now,  I  will  give 
you  an  illustration  of  that.  There  probably  never  was  a  project  put  through  with  as 
thorough,  as  long,  as  expensive,  and  as  skilled  investigation  as  the  Panama  Canal. 

That  canal  was  conceived  away  back  in  the  seventies  and  construction  started  and 
a  large  amount  of  excavation  was  carried  on.  Before  that  was  done,  I  do  not  know 
just  when,  but  very  thorough  investigations  were  made  in  there  by  drilling  and 
excavating  pits  to  sea  level  with  the  idea  of  developing  the  difference  between  a 
sea-level  canal  and  a  lock  canal.  After  some  $300,000,000  had  been  spent  upon 
investigations  and  construction  work,  all  of  which  developed  information,  the  United 
States  went  into  it  and  spent  several  million  dollars  investigating  that  project  after 
they  took  hold  of  it,  and  yet  the  criticism  is  made  to-day,  in  which  I  do  not  concur, 
that  that  project  was  undertaken  with  insufficient  investigations  before  it  was  con- 
structed. We  all  recall  the  slides  that  occurred.  I  was  a  member  of  the  committee 
that  went  down  to  investigate  the  slides,  that  committee  being  sent  by  the  National 
Academy  of  Sciences.  I  was  on  a  previous  consulting  board  that  investigated  the 
slides  and  the  Gatun  Dam .  I  think  it  would  have  taken  almost  a  superman  to  have 
constructed  that  canal  more  wisely  than  it  was  constructed.  I  have  no  criticism 
whatever  to  make  of  the  investigations  or  the  construction,  but  immediately  upon 
the  opening  of  the  canal  we  had  a  surprise  in  the  way  of  an  unexpected  slide.  We 
had  the  opinions  of  a  board  of  13  expert  engineers  who  passed  upon  the  slopes  on 
which  that  canal  should  be  constructed.  Those  slopes  were  flattened  somewhat, 
but  in  spite  of  that  these  slides  occurred.  The  majority  of  that  committee  of  which 
I  was  a  member  reported  that  they  should  have  investigated  further  and  found  out 
more  about  it  in  order  to  prevent  those  slides.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  portion  of  that 
canal  slid  in  the  Cucaracha  formation,  and  yet  another  portion  of  the  same  forma- 
tion, constructed  on  the  same  slope,  did  not  slide.  No  man  can  tell  to-day  why. 

I  claim  that  the  investigation  could  have  not  been  shown  that.  Of  course,  it  would 
have  been  possible  to  construct  the  canal  on  a  flatter  slope  so  that  those  slides  would 
not  occur,  but  we  did  not  know  what  slope  that  would  be.  A  portion  of  that  slope  is 
still  standing  to-day,  and  we  do  not  know  whether  it  will  be  standing  a  hundred  years 
from  now  or  next  week,  but  it  has  not  slid  yet.  But  why  that  did  not  slide  and  the 
other  portion  did,  I  do  not  think  any  man  can  answer.  Now,  that  illustrates  what  I 
say,  no  matter  how  exhaustive  the  preliminary  investigation,  every  big  and  little 
project  may  develop  some  surprises,  and  the  failure  of  a  small  project  is  not  so  serious 
as  the  failure  of  a  large  project. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Is  there  repose  on  the  Canal  now?  Is  there  any  sliding  going  on 
to-day? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  has  been  no  recent  interruption  of  traffic,  I  believe,  but  I  do  not 
suppose  there  has  been  a  minute  in  the  last  10  years  that  there  has  not  been  some 
movement  of  the  earth  down  there. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Mr.  Davis,  would  you  care  to  commit  yourself  at  this  time  to  the 
amount  that  you  would  recommend  for  these  secondary  surveys  and  inspections  for 
one  year? 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  63 

Mr.  DAVIS.  For  one  year? 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Yes,  so  that  you  could  investigate  all  of  those  projects  that  appeal 
to  you  as  being  feasible. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  To  be  taken  from  the  general  fund  in  the  Treasury? 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Mr.  Hudspeth,  my  authority  extends  only  to  the  reclamation  fund, 
and  it  has  always  been  my  practice  to  make  those  recommendations  through  the 
proper  channels.  I  am  supposed  to  be  guided  in  all  such  matters  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  and  for  that  reason,  while  I  do  not  refuse  to  answer  your  question,  and 
will  answer  it,  I  want  to  be  understood  as  answering  your  question  because  you  have 
asked  me  and  not  of  my  own  motion. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  You  can  answer  the1  question  if  you  wish  to  do  so. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  a  policy  of  that  kind  should  contemplate  a  considerable  time, 
that  it  would  be  unwise  to  limit  an  appropriation  to  one  year,  or  if  the  appropria- 
tion  

Mr.  HUDSPETH  (interposing).  The  reason  I  stated  a  year  was  because  I  got  the  im- 
pression from  your  statement  that  you  thought  it  ought  to  be  limited  to  a  year. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  no.  The  point  I  made  was  that  if  it  is  limited  to  a  year  it  ought 
not  to  be  so  large  as  when  the  time  limit  should  be  removed. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  What  limit  would  you  set? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  not  fix  any  limit  at  all.  The  suggestion  made  by  Judge  Raker 
would  be  sufficient  to  give  the  department  a  free  hand,  but  that  should  be  done  from 
year  to  year,  and  if  that  was  done  I  think  it  should  be  contemplated  in  advance  that 
the  investigations  should  extend  over  a  series  of  years,  because  a  large  sum  of  money 
could  not  be  economically  expended  in  one  year  for  the  reason  that  our  information 
and  our  knowledge  is  always  growing  and  the  expenditures  should  cover  continuing 
investigation.  I  would  suggest  an  appropriation  of  $250,000  for  the  first  year  and  after 
that,  say  for  three  years,  an  appropriation  of  three  hundred  thousand  a  year  would  be- 
ample  to  develop  the  feasible  projects  of  the  West  and  determine  in  a  general  way 
their  economic  value,  coming  to  a  total  of  a  million  dollars  or  so,  such  as  you  suggested. 
a  few  minutes  ago,  but  not  necessarily  expended  all  at  once.  It  should  be  expended 
year  by  year  until  the  investigation  was  completed.  I  do  not  think  the  whole  appro- 
priation should  be  made  at  once  because  the  service  would  be  overwhelmed  by  the- 
demands  upon  it.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  believe  in  asking  for  more  money  than 
it  is  wise  to  spend. 

Mr.  HUDSPETH.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  want  to  get  your  judgment  on  the  matter.. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Mr.  Hudspeth,  it  would  be  impossible  to  double  the  amount  of  work 
in  one  year  on  account  of  the  limited  number  of  men  who  are  fitted  for  that  work. 
Is  not  that  true,  Mr.  Davis? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  1  do  not  agree  with  that.  If  this  was  an  organization  spending  only  a, 
hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year  your  remarks  would  be  entirely  to  the  point,  but  the 
Reclamation  Service  is  expending  from  twelve  to  fifteen  million  dollars  a  year. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  But  you  have  these  trained  men  in  places  where  they  are  supposed1 
to  be  essential  and  you  would  have  to  take  them  off  of  that  work  and  put  them  on  this- 
investigational  work? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  true,  but  an  organization  such  as  we  have  is  susceptible  of  a  good 
deal  of  elasticity.  If  we  had  a  choice  of  a  number  of  men  required  to  spend  $14,000,000 
a  year  the  choice  necessarily  would  be  much  wider  than  if  we  were  only  spending  $100,- 
000  a  year. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  While  we  are  on  that  point,  would  you  mind  mentioning  whether  or 
not  it  is  just  as  easy  to  get  men  out  of  college  to-day  as  it  was  10  years  ago  for  this  rough 
field  work? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  I  can  say  it  is  not  quite  so  easy,  but  we  have  not  taken  in  so> 
many  men  of  that  character  lately,  although  occasionally  we  have  some. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Men  who  are  at  present  engaged  in  handling  the  work  of  developing 
national  resources  say  that  it  is  very  hard  to  get  college  graduates  to  take  up  the  work 
that  they  took  up  gladly  10  years  ago. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  that  is  largely  due  to  the  salaries,  and  in  that  respect  I  can  con- 
firm it.  The  salaries  of  Government  officials  have  not  grown  in  accordance  with  the 
salaries  of  similar  officials  outside  the  service. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  Do  you  not  think  it  would  be  due  to  the  spirit  which  is  expressed  in  the 
present  unrest  among  our  people,  because  they  would  rather  be  in  a  city  where  they 
can  view  the  lights  than  taking  a  chance  on  something  which  may  return  to  them  from 
their  experience  in  5  or  10  or  15  years? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  there  is  a  great  deal  in  that,  but  it  differs  with  the  men  and  their 
occupations.  We  find  that  the  majority  of  our  projects  are  isolated  from  social  at- 
tractions, from  transportation,  and  other  facilities  such  as  you  have  in  mind..  That 


04  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PBOJBCT. 

has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  clerical  force  and  the  people  whose  business  normally 
keeps  them  in  the  city,  but  it  has  mighty  little  to  do  with  the  choice  of  an  engineer. 
Strange  to  say,  engineers  and  their  families  do  not  object  to  the  hardships  of  the  camps 
and  the  isolated  frontiers  to  the  same  extent  that  they  would  if  they  were  in  other 
lines  of  work  in  the  service.  It  is  very  difficult  to  keep  sufficient  clerks  on  our  force 
but  not  so  difficult  to  keep  engineers,  except  for  the  fact  of  direct  competition.  Engi- 
neers expect  to  rough  it.  Of  course,  we  have  to  meet  competition  in  salaries,  and  our 
service  is  damaged  by  not  being  able  to  pay  salaries  commensurate  with  salaries  paid 
on  the  outside. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  I  would  like  to  have  you  discuss  one  phase  of  this  situation,  Mr. 
Davis.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Federal  Power  Commission  by  their  decision  have 
practically  tied  up  650,000  hydroelectric  horsepower  for  all  time  or  until  the  matter 
is  determined  as  to  which  of  these  projects  is  the  more  feasible,  or  whether  either 
one  of  them  is  feasible,  is  this  not  a  very  pronounced  argument  for  the  pushing  ahead 
and  the  final  determination  of  the  feasibility  or  otherwise  of  this  whole  matter:  and 
also  which  of  the  proposed  plans  is  the  more  feasible?  There  is  650,000  horsepower 
tied  up,  until  this  matter  is  settled,  by  the  decision  which  has  been  rendered  by  this 
commission. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  agree  with  you,  and  that  is  my  purpose  in  reading  from  this  report. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  it  not  true,  if  you  follow  that  line  of  argument,  that  there  is 
a  great  deal  of  horsepower  locked  up  at  other  places  which  ought  to  be  unlocked? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  BARBOUR.  Is  there  any  problem  on  the  Colorado  River  between  two  States 
that  has  recently  been  adjusted? 

Mr  DAVIS.  I  think  nothing  as  acute  as  this.  There  are  international  problems  and 
also  interstate  problems.  It  occurred  to  me,  merely  as  a  suggestion — I  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  worth  anything  or  not — that  a  similar  commission  could  be  formed  by 
sending  commissioners  from  Montana,  Idaho,  Washington,  and  Oregon  to  examine 
this  matter  and  reach  an  interstate  agreement  concerning  the  development  of  these 
waters,  at  a  more  opportune  time,  after  this  investigation  which  is  now  asked  for  is 
completed.  There  would  have  to  be  a  convention  entered  into,  certainly  in  the 
case  of  the  construction  of  the  Grand  Coulee  Dam.  Either  that  would  have  to  be 
provided  with  a  lock  lifting  boat  something  like  200  feet,  or  it  would  have  to  be  re- 
jected, or  we  would  have  to  remove  the  treaty  provision  contained  in  our  convention 
with  Canada  that  the  United  States  will  do  nothing  to  interfere  with  navigation  on 
the  Columbia  River.  Probably  some  objection  might  be  made  by  Canada  to  the 
diversion  of  the  waters  of  the  Pend  Oreille  River,  but  that  is  a  remote  possibility. 
That  was  the  purpose  in  putting  Idaho  and  Montana  on  the  board  that  investigated 
this  matter  for  the  Federal  Power  Commission,  but  they  bind  nobody. 

Their  agreement  to  this  report  is  not  binding  upon  any  State,  nor  was  it  expected 
that  it  would  be  binding  upon  any  State.  Some  binding  agreement,  I  think,  might 
eventually  turn  out  to  be  desirable.  I  am  expressing  a  doubt  about  that  because 
disputes  between  States  on  a  matter  of  this  kind  do  not  seem  to  be  difficult  of  removal. 
The  storage  of  water  there  would  be  objected  to,  of  course,  at  the  Flathead  by  the 
residents  around  the  lake.  To  some  extent  the  riparian  land  owners  might  object  in 
other  places,  but  those  objections  can  probably  be  overcome  by  the  power  of  eminent 
domain.  On  the  other  hand,  if  those  objections  are  sufficiently  strong  to  arouse  a 
State  antagonism,  the  power  of  eminent  domain  can  not  remove  those  objections,  and 
rather  than  throw  the  matter  into  litigation  those  objections  would  better  be  removed 
in  some  other  way.  That  is  really  what  the  decision  in  the  Colorado  River  case 
amounted  to.  There  was  water  enough  for  all  and  nobody  was  going  to  lose  anything. 
That  explains  why  seven  States  could  get  together.  Perhaps  they  could  not  have 
done  so  if  that  had  not  been  the  fact . 

Mr.  RAKER.  Seven  States  adjusted  it  among  themselves  and  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment is  left  out? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  in  one  sense;  yes.  The  Federal  Government  was  represented 
and  its  representative  agreed  to  this  arrangement,  but  the  arrangement  is  not  valid 
until  it  is  approved  by  the  United  States  Congress. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  was  "read ing  that,  and  I  was  just  wondering  whether  or  not  that 
arrangement  between  the  seven  States  does  not  adjudicate  everything  against  the 
Federal  Government. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  not.  The  fact  is,  however,  that  is  a  compact  between  the 
.States  and  not  with  the  United  States.  The  United  States  is  not  a  party  to  the  com- 
pact. It  comes  under  the  constitutional  provision  that  such  a  contract  can  not  be 
valid  until  it  is  approved  by  the  United  States,  but  the  consent  of  the  United  States 
to  the  different  States  entering  into  an  agreement  among  themselves  does  not  neces- 
sarily make  it  a  compact  with  the  United  States. 


COLUMBIA  BASIX    IRRIGATION    PROJECT.  65 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  not  that  leave  out  the  United  States  in  the  adjustment  of  the 
use  of  waters  for  purposes  of  this  kind? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  in  that  sense  left  out:  but  in  another  point  of  view  the  United 
States  has  no  interest  other  than  the  interests  of  the  States  and  their  mutual  interests, 
except  the  international  interests. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  reading  that  Colorado  case  and  reading  this  treaty — and  I  have 
read  it  two  or  three  times — I  must  confess  that  the  purpose  is  not  clear  in  my  mind. 
I  was  wondering  what  that  agreement  was  drawn  for.  It  is  an  adjustment  between 
the  States,  but  it  leaves  out  the  Federal  Government.  It  is  just  like  a  similar  adjust- 
ment that  was  made  between  the  States  of  Oregon,  Idaho,  and  Washington  for  the 
purpose  of  building  the  Columbia  River  project. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  You  would  like  to  have  my  opinion  of  that? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  not  agree  with  the  suggestion  that  it  jeopardizes  the  rights  of  the 
United  States.  There  is  one  paragraph  in  that  compact  which  provided  for  a  pre- 
dominence  of  irrigation  and  domestic  uses  and  power  uses  over  navigation.  It  was 
claimed  by  the  counsel  of  the  United  States  that  if  that  arrangement  was  approved  it 
would  override  and  discard  the  authority  of  the  United  States  over  tha  river,  and  in 
order  to  guard  against  the  disapproval  by  Congress  of  the  whole  compact  a  provision 
was  inserted  in  the  agreement  that  if  this  paragraph  was  disapproved  by  Congress  it 
should  not  operate  to  vitiate  the  entire  treaty,  and  therefore  Congress  may  reject  the 
provisions  of  that  paragraph  without  rejecting  the  entire  treaty.  That  is  tne  way  that 
difficulty  was  overcome.  The  question  you  have  raised  was  discussed  by  the  com- 
mission and  I  think  I  am  violating  no  confidence  when  I  say  that  it  was  resolved 
in  the  way  that  the  Federal  representative  desired.  There  was  some  justification  in 
the  Federal  act  for  assuming  that  this  commission  could  divide  the  water.  Most  of 
the  States,  on  the  contrary,  passed  an  act  to  divide  the  use  of  the  water,  not  making 
any  division  of  the  actual  corpus  of  the  water.  The  word  "uses' '  was  incorporated  in 
it  in  order  to  remove  any  doubt  in  the  matter  as  to  whether  or  not  it  was  a  surrender 
to  the  authority  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  get  all  of  the  proceedings  and  I  was 
wondering  whether  or  not  that  question  had  been  gone  into.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
agreement  sets  out  the  same  question  that  is  involved  between  the  three  States. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  the  questions  are  somewhat  similar.  In  this  case  I  think  it  is 
possible  to  get  a  maximum  development  from  the  natural  resources  without  jeopardiz- 
ing the  interests  of  any  State.  That  is  also  true  of  the  Colorado  River. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  still  at  the  same  time  keeping  us  on  terms  of  peace  and  justice 
with  foreign  countries? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  unless  there  are  some  further  questions,  I  have  con- 
cluded. 

Mr.  SiNXOTT.  Mr.  Davis,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  question.  This  bill  contemplates 
an  investigation  and  report  upon  the  water  supply  which  might  be  made  available 
for  the  Columbia  basin  project  and  also  a  report  upon  any  other  lands  capable  of  being 
irrigated  by  the  waters  to  be  conserved  by  this  project.  Now,  right  down  here  in 
Oregon  at  this  point  on  the  map  is  what  is  known  as  the  Umatilla  project,  a  possible 
power  project  where  they  hope  to  develop  several  hundred  thousand  horsepower 
and  irrigate  from  three  to  four  hundred  thousand  acres  of  land  both  in  Oregon  and 
Washington? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  The  minimum  flow  of  the  Columbia  River  there  is  approximately 
40,000  second  feet.  They  propose  to  take  out  of  the  headwaters  for  the  Columbia 
basin  project  some  23,000  second  feet.  Now,  could  not  this  investigation  and  report 
cover  an  investigation  and  a  report  bearing  upon  the  effect  of  this  diversion  upon  this 
Umatilla  project?  That  could  all  be  reported  at  once,  and  investigated. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINXOTT.  So  that  we  may  know  how  this  Columbia  River  project  is  going  to 
affect  the  Umatilla  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Do  you  mean  to  ask  me  whether  this  appropriation  provided  for  in  this 
bill  would  be  sufficient  to  fully  investigate  this  project  as  well  as  the  Columbia  basin 
project? 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Yes. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  it  would  not. 

Mr.  SIXNOTT.  So  that  we  may  know  the  effect  of  the  diversion  of  this  water  upon 
the  Umatilla  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  could  be  investigated,  but  if  the  investigation  was  to  include  an 
investigation  of  the  possibilities  of  power  development  in  the  Umatilla  Rapids,  it  is 
not  sufficient  for  both  purposes. 


66  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  About  how  much  more  would  be  necessary  to  cover  that  investiga- 
tion? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  should  say  it  would  have  to  be  probably  doubled  because  it  would 
require  borings  and  other  investigations  of  the  soil,  etc.  It  has  not  been  investi- 
gated in  that  way  at  all. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Apart  from  the  borings  how  much  more  additional  would  it  take  to 
determine  the  effect  upon  the  Umatilla  project  of  the  diversion  of  this  water? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  effect  could  be  determined  without  much  investigation  of  the  Uma- 
tilla project  because  we  could  readily  find  out  how  it  would  affect  the  water  supply 
which  would  be  mainly  affected  by  that  project.  That  could  be  determined  without 
reference  to  the  feasibility  or  cost  of  this  other  project  down  here,  but  it  would  not  be 
of  very  much  interest,  of  course,  unless  some  light  were  thrown  upon  the  feasibility  of 
the  Umatilla  Rapids,  because  if  that  project  were  not  feasible  it  would  not  make  any 
difference,  and  on  the  other  hand  if  it  was  feasible  it  would  make  some  difference. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Assuming  it  was  feasible,  your  investigation  could  cover  an  investi- 
gation of  the  effect  upon  the  .Umatilla  project  of  the  diversion  of  this  water? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  but  I  do  not  know  whether  this  language  is  sufficient,  if  that  is 
what  you  mean. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Well,  we  could  easily  change  the  language  to  cover  that.  I  will  say 
there  have  been  large  public  meetings  in  Oregon  to  consider  the  Umatilla  Rapids 
project.  They  have  been  very  much  interested  in  the  Umatilla  project. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  I  am  aware  of  that. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  And  I  would  like  to  know  the  effect  of  the  Columbia  Basin  project 
upon  that  project. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  that  could  be  determined. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  think  your  report  could  cover  that? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  report  could  cover  the  effect  upon  the  water  supply,  but  I  am  not 
sure  whether  this  language  would  be  sufficient  to  cover  an  investigation  of  the  Uma- 
tilla Rapids.  A  thorough  investigation  would  require  more  money.  The  matter  of 
setting  forth  the  area  and  the  amount  of  pumping  required  could  be  accomplished 
with  a  small  amount  of  money  if  the  language  was  changed.  I  think  such  an  investi- 
gation would  be  pertinent  to  the  subject,  but  whether  the  language  would  be  sufficient 
to  cover  it,  you  would  have  to  ask  a  lawyer  after  the  bill  had  been  signed. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Before  you  conclude,  'Mr.  Davis,  have  your  investigations  so  far 
made  enabled  you  to  determine  which  of  the  two  plans  is  the  more  feasible— pumping 
or  gravity? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No,  sir;  I  have  not  been  able  nor  willing  to  make  up  my  mind  on  that 
subject  so  far.  The  arguments  on  both  sides  are  pretty  heavy,  and  the  facts  are  not 
all  agreed  upon  in  the  different  opinions  that  have  been  expressed.  I  have  not  given 
it  sufficient  investigation  personally  to  determine  those  facts  for  myself,  nor  do  I  think 
the  investigations  so  far  are  sufficient.  I  base  that  opinion  largely  on  the  opinion  of 
the  Federal  Power  Commission's  board  because  they  have  made  far  more  exhaustive 
investigations  on  this  subject  than  I  have,  and  it  is  a  large  board  with  very  competent 
men  upon  it.  I  defer  to  their  opinion  in  that  respect.  I  do  not  think  the  facts  are 
sufficient  for  the  purpose,  and,  in  fact,  I  know  a  good  many  places  where  they  are 
lacking.  For  example,  one  opinion  is  that  the  borings  that  the  commission  has  made 
at  the  Grand  Coulee  Dam  site  are  more  favorable  than  was  assumed  in  the  report,  and 
the  other  opinion  is  that  they  are  less  favorable.  I  have  not  examined  sufficiently  to 
determine  which  of  those  two  is  correct  or  whether  either  one  of  them  is  true.  It  is 
not  a  very  easy  matter  to  determine,  because  the  conditions  are  different  from  what 
they  were  some  time  ago,  and  whether  they  are  improved  or  hampered  by  one  thing 
or  another  is  always  a  question  of  opinion,  and  I  am  not  able  to  exppess  an  opinion  at 
this  time. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Take  the  State  of  Montana  as  it  is  delineated  on  the  map,  with  the 
watershed,  with  the  heavy  blue  line.  This  investigation  would  determine  the  water 
supply  in  that  State,  its  source,  and  the  available  lands  for  irrigation  and  whether  it 
was  feasible  over  the  greater  part  of  the  State  of  Montana,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  This  problem  involves  a  discharge  only  at  the  outlet  of  the  lake,  and 
other  details  at  the  reservoir  sites,  and  the  discharge  at  the  two  points,  the  point  of 
diversion  here  and  the  other  point  there  [indicating  on  map]. 

Mr.  RAKER.  It  appears  to  me  that  before  any  work  could  be  accomplished  on  either 
of  these  two  or  three  lakes,  Priest  Lake,  Flathead  Lake,  or  Pend  Oreille  Lake,  that  all 
the  available  land  and  water  and  the  application  of  the  water  to  the  land  would  have 
to  be  determined  by  these  two  States  within  this  watershed  so  as  to  see  how  much 
water  they  would  need  for  the  two  States  before  any  of  this  water  would  be  permitted 
to  come  into  the  Columbia  irrigation  project. 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  67 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Estimates  of  the  required  consumptive  use  of  water  in  those  States,  of 
course,  are  necessary  to  find  out  how  much  would  be  left  for  the  use  of  this  project,  if 
those  developments"  were  to  be  left  unhampered.  Estimates  of  those  uses  have  been 
made  by  the  State  engineers  and  are  considered  by  the  Federal  Power  Commission. 
My  belief  is  that  they  are  probably  ample. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  am  getting  at,  Mr.  Davis,  is  that  it  would  be  a  practical  exam- 
ination of  all  of  this  territory  as  to  the  available  irrigable  land  and  the  amount  of 
water  applicable  to  it,  and  then  a  determination  whether  or  not  it  would  be  feasible 
in  these  States  within  the  territory  before  you  could  come  to  a  conclusion  as  to  the 
Columbia  Basin. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  not. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Then  I  will  put  it  this  way.  It  would  be  necessary  to  obtain  that 
information? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  would  be  necessary  to  have  some  idea  of  it.  It  would  not  have  to 
be  known  accurately,  probably  not  more  accurately  than  it  is  now.  I  think  it  would 
"be  well  to  check  up  the  statements  of  the  State  engineers  regarding  the  amount  of 
water  required,  and  we  may  generally  assume  that  the  statements  they  make  are 
ample  in  size,  and  as  made  now  they  show  a  surplus.  In  other  words,  for  the  gravity 
project  we  would  not  need  all  of  those  reservoirs.  We  could  get  along  with  the  Pend 
Oreille  Lake  and  either  of  the  other  lakes,  Flathead  or  Priest  Lake. 

Mr.  RAKER.  What  I  want  to  convey  to  you  is  this,  that  the  feasibility  of  the  Colum- 
bia Basin  project  in  the  State  of  Washington  could  not  be  fully  determined,  as  General 
Goethals  said,  until  the  States  of  Montana  and  Idaho  were  satisfied  relative  to  the 
impounding  of  water  in  Flathead  Lake,  Pend  Oreille  Lake,  and  Priest  Lake,  so  as 
to  make  an  equitable  adjustment. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  as  a  human  and  physical  fact  that  is  true.     They  must  be  satisfied. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Now,  that  being  true,  what  I  want  to  know  is  this.  The  last  state- 
ment being  true,  and  it  seems  to  be  conceded  by  all,  then  it  would  be  necessary  to 
make  a  fairly  accurate  survey  of  the  land  and  water  resources  of  those  two  States 
within  the  watershed. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  We  would  have  to  have  sufficient  information  to  satisfy  them  on  that 
point.  Now,  the  point  which  I  have  been  trying  to  make  is  that  we  do  know  those 
facts,  with  so  wide  a  margin  that  it  covers  any  error  in  the  available  data. 

Mr.  RAKER.  The  question  I  want  to  ask  you  is  this — and  this  is  a  good  opportunity 
to  put  my  question  on  the  Colorado  River,  because  if  you  have  not  investigated  it 
yet  this  will  give  you  an  opportunity  to  do  so — whether  or  not  the  Government  would 
be  justified  in  putting  money  into  an  irrigation  project  like  the  Columbia  Basin  at 
a  cost  of  $250,000,000  unless  it  knew  under  the  law  it  had  a  right,  by  virtue  of  prior 
appropriation,  to  control  the  waters  that  would  come  into  that  basin  for  future  use? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  Government  would  have  to  be  satisfied  before  it  could  wisely  do 
that,  that  there  was  no  reasonable  probability  of  an  interference  with  the  water  sup- 
ply that  would  vitiate  the  feasibility  of  the  project. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  the  Government  would  have  to  have  a  prior  right  to  divert  the 
use  of  that  water,  the  same  as  a  private  individual? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  the  Government's  rights  in  that  respect  are  not  thoroughly  decided. 
No  court  has  decided  what  its  rights  are.  There  are  three  different  theories  that  were 
advanced  in  the  recent  Colorado-Wyoming  case,  only  two  of  which  were  decided. 
Wyoming  argued  for  prior  appropriation.  Colorado  argued  that  it  owned  all  the  water 
that  fell  upon  its  soil.  The  United  States  claimed  that  all  of  the  unappropriated 
waters  of  the  public-land  States  belong  to  the  United  States  until  appropriated  to  use, 
and  that  question  was  not  decided.  * 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  it  does  hold  that  the  Federal  Government  had  a  right  to  appro- 
priate the  water  in  either  of  those  States  the  same  a?  a  private  individual,  and  because 
there  were  State  lines  it  did  not  affect  the  right  of  the  Federal  Government  in  the 
matter.  Is  that  right? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  there  was  no  decision  in  the  case  that  touched  upon  that  ques- 
tion. They  ignored  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Judge,  was  the  Federal  Government  an  applicant? 

Mr.  RAKER.  Not  necessarily  an  applicant  but  it  was  involved. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  It  was  acting  as  a  private  individual? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir;  but  Attorney  General  Davis  intervened  and  made  the  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  principle  that  the  United  States  owned  all  the  unappropriated 
waters  of  the  public  lands  as  a  riparian  owner. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Does  not  that  decision  hold,  in  theory,  but  not  directly,  that  the 
Federal  Government  would  have  the  right  to  appropriate  the  waters  for  a  reclamation 
project? 


68  COLUMBIA  BASIN"   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  think  so.  The  right  to  appropriate  water  by  the  United  States 
Government  is  involved  in  the  reclamation  act  that  authorizes  the  appropriation 
and  directs  that  it  be  done  in  accordance  with  State  laws,  and  that  is  the  practice. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  the  Government  woiild  have  to  obtain  a  prior  right,  as  against 
others  who  might  divert  all  of  the  waters,  before  the  Government  would  be  justified 
in  expending  a  large  amount  of  money? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  have  been  over  the  land  in  that  vicinity? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  I  have  ridden  over  it  but  I  have  not  made  any  examination  of  it. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  have  seen  the  land  that  might  possibly  be  irrigated? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Could  not  that  land  be  investigated  without  very  much  cost  to 
determine  the  effect  of  the  irrigation  on  these  waters? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  some  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  are 
laboring  under  a  misapprehension  as  to  the  statement  of  General  Goethals  regarding 
the  effect  of  the  engineering  that  has  been  done  by  the  State  commission.  What 
General  Goethals  was  endeavoring  to  do  was  to  show  the  different  methods  to  be 
employed  in  computing  the  cost  of  putting  this  water  on  each  unit  of  the  area  to  be 
reclaimed,  as  against  the  method  to  be  employed  by  the  Reclamation  Service  in 
similar  projects.  He  did  not  say,  and  could  not  accurately  say,  that  that  prelimi- 
nary work  had,  in  fact,  been  done.  Those  estimates  in  some  degree  were  estimates 
and  not  based  upon  surveys  which  have  alredy  been  agreed  upon. 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  do  not  know  about  that,  Judge.     I  got  the  idea — - 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  I  do  not  want  to  make  a  statement  myself  but  I  want  to  have  Mr. 
Goodner,  who  is  present  in  the  room,  explain  the  matter  to  the  committee,  as  he  has 
all  the  facts. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  I  would  like  to  hear  what  Mr.  Goodner  has  to  say. 

STATEMENT  OF  MB.  IVAN  E.  GOODNEB,  CHIEF  ENGINEER,  COLUM- 
BIA BASIN  SUBVEY. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  conducting  surveys  by  the  State,  we  made  the 
actual  instrumental  surveys  on  the  canals  and  locations  in  detail  down  to  the  100 
second-foot  capacity  canal,  which  covers  about  a  10,000-acre  unit,  on  those  areas 
where  we  did  not  have  already  existing  United  States  Geological  Survey  topographic 
maps.  Where  those  maps  exist  showing  contours  based  on  10,  25,  or  50  foot  intervals, 
it  is  possible  to  make  an  office  location  and  check  only  the  control  points  in  the  field 
from  the  10,000-acre  size  down.  Both  the  State  engineers  and  General  Goethals  checked 
the  cost  as  arrived  at  on  the  Federal  and  other  projects  per  acre  for  small  distribution. 
Finding  a  close  average  on  the  southern  Idaho  area  to  be  about  $15  per  acre,  to  the 
estimates  based  on  actual  field  surveys  we  added  the  lump  sum  of  $15  per  acre  to 
cover  the  detailed  location  of  arm  units.  If  the  General  gave  the  impression  that  the 
farm  units  had  been  surveyed,  it  was  due  to  an  inaccurate  expression  on  his  part, 
because  it  was  not  his  thught  to  make  such  a  statement. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Do  you  think  it  is  necessary  at  this  time  to  carry  the  survey 
down  to  the  farm  unit? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No,  sir;  not  until  you  approach  the  construction  point.  That  is 
one  of  the  construction  details.  That  is  not  considered  until  you  know  you  are  going 
to  ,go  ahead  with  the  construction  work.  Where  we  are  able  to  use  the  United  States 
topographic  maps,  they  may  be  checked  by  actual  field  surveys.  But  I  do  not  mean 
to  say  that  every  part  of  the  actual  field  survey  is  necessary  down  to  the  40-acre  unit. 
That  is  usually  only  done  when  we  get  to  the  point  of  actual  construction. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  Just  what  is  the  problem  to  be  investigated  if  this  appropriation 
were  made? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  All  the  points  which  have  been  made  by  Director  Davis  I  will  not 
review.  I  would  rather  discuss  the  statements  made  by  General  Goethals.  In 
addition  to  the  secondary  storage  problem  which  is  expected  to  reduce  the  cost  of 
the  main  line,  further  studies  must  be  made  as  to  the  areas  in  Montana  which  would 
require  water  from  above  our  diversion  point,  and  the  study  of  additional  areas 
which  might  be  developed,  and  also  a  more  general  and  broad  study  of  the  economic 
phases  involved  as  between  a  pumping  project  and  a  gravity  project.  To  my  mind 
that  is  the  initial  thing  to  be  worked  out. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  What  is  that  last  statement  you  made? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  A  broader  study  must  be  made  as  to  the  economic  considerations 
which  should  govern  whether  we  develop  a  gravity  project  or  a  pumping  project,, 
assuming  them  both  to  be  feasible  from  an  engineering  standpoint. 


COLUMBIA   BASIN    IRRIGATION    PROJECT.  69 

Mr.  \VILLIAMSOX.  Did  you  have  in  mind  the  possible  losses  by  reason  of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  water  power? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Yes,  sir.  Now,  I  would  like  to  say  that  the  recent  report  of  the 
•Super-Power  Commission,  covering  a  study  of  the  New  England  and  intervening 
areas  as  far  south  as  this  city,  shows  somewhere  between  five  and  eight  million 
hydraulic  horsepower  actually  used  in  that  region. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  that  a  voluntary  commission? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  No;  that  was  a  Federal  commission.  Perhaps  Director  Davis  can 
give  you  the  exact  title.  I  do  not  recall  it.  But  the  report  was  given  out  as  the 
report  on  the  superpower  project.  It  was  authorized  by  act  of  Congress  during  the 
war.  Now,  this  entire  industrial  area  uses  between  five  and  eight  million  horsepower. 
In  the  area  on  the  map,  taking  the  radius  of  300  miles  from  the  Columbia  Basin  pro- 
ject, the  reports  of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey,  water  resources  branch, 
show  somewhere  between  ten  and  thirteen  million  available  horsepower.  Now, 
knowing  that  that  horsepower  is  available  for  development  in  that  area,  which 
lacks  many-fold  having  the  development  that  the  area  in  the  superpower  survey 
has,  the  State  commission  felt  that  there  was  no  immediate  necessity  for  it  to  make  a 
detailed  analysis  of  the  effect  of  either  project  on  the  power  situation.  The  question 
has  been  raised,  and  as  Director  Davis  has  well  stated,  it  is  a  moot  point  as  to  the 
effect,  some  claiming  one  thing  and  some  claiming  another.  But  as  a  matter  of 
economic  development,  one-half  a  million  or  a  million  horsepower  in  that  particu- 
lar area,  which  contains  ten  or  thirteen  million  horsepower,  with  long  distance 
electric  transmission  available,  is  not  so  important  as  the  development  of 
2.000,000  acres  of  land,  with  no  other  water  available  for  irrigation  of  that  land 
than  these  two  sources. 

Now,  answering  the  question  that  Mr.  Sinnott  asked  regarding  the  effect  on  the 
Umatilla  project,  our  diversion  of  23,000  second-feet  would  come  during  the  months 
of  June,  July,  and  part  of  August,  during  part  of  which  time  the  Columbia  River  is 
usually  in  flood  flow.  The  flow  at  the  Umatilla  rapids  at  that  time  might  be  anywhere 
from  three-quarters  of  a  million  to  a  million  second-feet  and  in  some  years  much  more 
than  a  million  second-feet.  Therefore  the  diversion  above  of  23,000  second-feet 
would  not  seriously  deplete  the  power  at  that  place.  When  the  Columbia  River 
gets  down  to  the  point  of  50.000  second-feet  it  is  in  the  dead  of  winter,  at  which 
time  the  Columbia  Basin  project  would  not  be  taking  a  single  drop  of  water  for  any 
purpose. 

We  have  investigated  the  Umatilla  to  the  extent  that,  when  the  Columbia  River 
flood  is  so  great,  I  can  not  conceive  of  any  power  development  using  all  that  is  remain- 
ing after  our  irrigation  development  is  made. 

Mr.  SINNOTT.  You  would  have  no  objection,  however,  to  having  that  included  in 
the  report? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  No,  none  whatever. . 

Mr.  RAKER.  I  understood  from  General  Goethals's  statement  that  he  was  in  a  posi- 
tion to  give  his  opinion  as  to  the  feasibility  of  this  project,'  either  gravity  or  pumping, 
gravity  at  Albany  Falls  or  pumping  at  Grand  Coulee,  from  the  information  furnished 
him  in  the  surveys,  but  he  was  not  in  a  position  to  give  an  opinion  relative  to  the 
amount  of  water  that  could  be  accumulated  and  held  in  storage  and  turned  loose  at 
the  proper  time;  that  it  would  require  further  surveys  of  trie  Flathead  and  Pend 
Oreille  Lakes.  How  is  that?  Did  I  get  him  wrong  on  that? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  I  did  not  understand  him  quite  as  you  understand  him.  Perhaps 
that  is  because  I  am  quite  familiar  with  all  of  the  details  involved.  I  understood  his 
answer  in  the  light  of  all  the  knowledge  that  I  knew  he  had  concerning  it,  and  his 
answer  from  an  outside  standpoint  have  conveyed  to  you  the  impression  you  have,  but 
not  to  me. 

Mr.  RAKER.  How  could  he  give  his  opinion  that  either  one  o.f  those  points  were 
feasible  and  were  O.  K.,  and  he  would  put  his  O.  K.  on  them,  if  it  required  a  large 
amount  of  money  for  further  survey? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Let  me  answer  your  question  by  a  very  homely  illustration.  For 
example,  you  have  decided  to  build  a  $100,000  house. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Oh,  no;  I  am  not  in  that  class. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  You  are  undecided  whether  you  want  a  slate  roof  or  a  tile  roof  or  a 
shingle  roof,  which  would  make  a  difference  of  $5,000,  but  it  does  not  affect  the  considera- 
tion that  such  a  house  would  be  suitable  for  your  needs.  And  similarly  to  that,  on  an 
expenditure  of  $250,000,000  the  substantial" things  are  self-evident:  they  have  been 
worked  out.  There  may  be  variations  of,  say,  $50,000,000,  but  that  does  not  affect 
the  substantial  thing,  that  it  is  a  big,  feasible,  economically  possible  problem  there, 
nor  the  fact  that  a  development  varying,  say,  $5.000,000,  for  primary  or  secondary 
storage  does  not  affect  the  substance  of  the  project. 


70  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

Mr.  RAKER.  But  how  could  the  General  give  his  opinion  as  to  the  Grand  Coulee 
project  without  a  survey  on  which  to  base  his  opinion? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  The  General's  answer  was  based  on  this.  I  would  say:  Assume  that 
the  dam  site  at  Grand  Coulee  is  feasible  and  the  area  to  be  irrigated  is  adequate,  he 
is  still  of  the  opinion,  as  a  matter  of  construction,  that  there  is  serious  doubt  as  to  the 
mechanical  feasibility  and  operating  cost. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  When  did  you  say  that  you  would  withhold  from  the  upper  reaches 
of  the  Columbia  River  the  23,000  second'-feet? 

Mr.  GOODNER.  In  the  latter  part  of  June,  all  of  July,  and  the  early  part  of  August. 

Mr:  SIXXOTT.  That  would  be  the  summer  flow? 

Mr.  GOODXER.  Yes;  the  early  summer  flow. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  As  I  recall,  at  the  Umatilla  Rapids  project,  the  summer  available 
irrigation  flow  is  about  120,000  second-feet.  What  were  your  figures?  I  think  they 
are  given  in  the  report  upon  the  Umatilla  project. 

Mr.  GOODXER.  I  believe  I  stated  that  during  the  flood  period  the  flow  of  the  Colum- 
bia River  would  range  from  750,000  to  1.000.000  second-feet. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  the  Umatilla  project  still  in  process  of  construction  on  the  river? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Xo:  they  are  agitating  it. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Is  that  project  in  process  of  construction  on  the  Columbia  River? 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  There  is  the  Umatilla  project,  which  is  near  the  Umatilla  Rapids. 
They  can  get  a  fall  in  the  river  of  between  35  and  70  feet.  Is  not  that  so,  Mr.  Davis? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  They  figure  that  they  can  develop  some  300,000  or  400,000  horsepower, 
aod  they  have  a  very  small  lift  there.  According  to  the  figures  that  I  have,  during 
the  summer  flow,  the  irrigation  season,  there  is  about  120.000  second -feet  at  that 
point,  and  the  people  there  propose  to  build  a  dam  and  develop  power  by  using  the 
water  from  the  river.  Senator  McNary  has  a  bill  pending  in  the  Senate  now  for  the 
investigation  of  the  canalization  of  the  Columbia  River. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  below  the  junction  with  the  Snake  River,  the  junction  of  the 
Snake  River  with  the  Columbia  River. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  I  have  a  similar  bill  pending  in  the  House  and  I  would  like  to  have 
this  committee  investigate  and  report  upon  the  effect  of  the  diversoin  of  the  upper 
reaches  upon  the  Umatilla  project. 

Mr.  GOODNER.  Following  the  flood  months  our  demands  would  be  drawn  from  the 
storage  of  flood  waters  which  would  ordinarily  have  run  to  waste  during  June  and 
would  have  been  surplus  waste  water  at  the  Umatilla  and  at  all  points  above.  Our 
maintenance  of  the  ordinary  navigation  flow  of  the  Clarks  Fork  or  Pend  Oreille  River, 
7,000  second-feet,  would  continue  practically  the  year  round;  it  would  certainly 
continue  all  through  the  summer  season.  Our  withdrawal  of  water  for  the  gravity 
project  from  any  storage  above  would  not  seriously  deplete  the  flow  which  would  be 
passing  the  Umatilla  point,  because  we  would  .be  drawing  our  surplus  over  the  7,000 
navigation  flow  out  of  stonvge. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  At  the  last  meeting  of  the  committee  the  wish  was  expressed  that 
there  should  be  made  a  part  of  this  hearing  certain  laws  and  decisions  of  the  State  of 
Washington.  I  have  secured  that  data  and  I  would  like  to  ask  permission  to  make  a 
part  of  the  hearings  chapter  136  of  the  Session  Laws  of  the  State  of  Washington,  1919, 
being  the  proposed  constitutional  amendment  as  to  the  power  of  eminent  domain. 

I  should  also  like  to  make  a  part  of  the  hearings  chapter  158  of  the  same  session  laws, 
an  act  known  as  the  State  reclamation  act. 

I  should  also  like  to  make  a  part  of  the  record  chapter  188  of  the  same  session  laws, 
an  act  known  as  the  land  settlement  act. 

Mr.  SIVXOTT.  How  long  are  those  acts,  Judge? 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Some  of  them  are  of  considerable  length,  but  the  proposed  consti- 
tutional amendment  is  quite  short.  The  other  acts  cover  several  pages.  The  State 
reclamation  act  covers  about  eight  pages,  and  the  land  settlement  act  about  four  pages 
printed  on  both  sides. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  Without  objection  they  will  go  in  the  record. 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  I  should  also  like  to  make  a  part  of  the  record  an  amendment  to  the 
land  settlement  act  found  in  chapter  90  of  the  Session  Laws  of  1920  and  1921,  the  act 
amending  section  4  of  the  land  settlement  act . 

I  should  also  like  to  make  a  part  of  the  record  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  State  of  Washington  filed  on  March  30,  1920,  in  the  case  of  the  State  of  Washington 
on  the  relation  of  the  State  Reclamation  Board  et  al,  plaintiff,  v.  E.  W.  Clausen, 
as  State  auditor,  respondent,  containing  a  discussion  of  the  constitutional  aspects  of 
the  land  settlement  act,  reported  in  110  Washington  reports,  page  525. 

Mr.  SIXXOTT.  That  is  the  act  that  was  requested  the  other  day. 


COLUMBIA   BASIN    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  71 

Mr.  WEBSTER.  Mr.  Chairman,  this  concludes  all  of  the  evidence  that  we  care  to 
submit  in  connection  with  this  bill,  and  I  therefore  commit  it  to  the  enlightened  con- 
science and  constructive  statesmenship  of  the  committee  so  far  as  I  have  anything  to 
•do  with  it. 

(The  papers  submitted  by  Mr.  Webster  are  inserted  at  the  conclusion  of  the  hearing.) 

STATEMENT  OF  MB.  A.  P.  DAVIS— Continued. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Davis  one  question,  and  that 
is  whether  the  passage  of  this  bill  and  the  contemplated  investigation  would  in  any 
way  interfere  with  the  prosecution  of  the  smaller  projects  throughout  the  West? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  see  no  possibility  of  such  interference. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  Many  of  us  are  interested  in  the  smaller  projects  as  well  as  in  the 
larger  projects,  and  I  thought  it  was  well  that  we  might  have  your  views  as  director  of 
that  service. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  the  full  investigation  and 
decision  regarding  the  wide  scope  and  feasibility  of  the  Columbia  Basin  project  is 
important  to  determine  the  irrigation  of  some  lands  that  might  be  irrigated  by  smaller 
projects.  For  example,  if  the  Columbia  Basin  project  should  be  definitely  decided 
to  be  unfeasible,  it  would  still  be  possible  to  irrigate  a  portion  of  that  project  from  other 
sources.  One  portion  south  of  Snake  River  can  be  irrigated  from  Snake  River,  and 
so  can  a  portion  by  the  use  of  the  Wenatchee  River.  The  original  Palouse  project 
might  be  revived.  It  is  possible  to  construct  small  pumping  plants  on  the  Columbia 
River  and  irrigate  small  areas  at  various  adjacent  points. 

That  will  be  the  character  of  development  that  may  be  carried  out  in  the  future  in 
the  larger  project  if  not  carried  out.  If  the  larger  project  is  to  be  carried  out  it  may  not 
be  wise  to  carry  out  some  of  these  smaller  projects,  on  account  of  the  duplication  at 
greater  expense  that  would  be  involved  per  acre,  for  the  small  projects  would  cut  the 
heart  out  of  the  big  one  before  it  is  built.  So  that  the  policy  regarding  the  develop- 
ment of  the  smaller  project  is  dependent  to  some  extent  upon  the  policy  to  be  adopted 
concerning  the  large  ones.  Whether  or  not  it  is  to  be  definitely  decided  that  this  is 
feasible  and  will  be  built  or  decided  to  be  unfeasible  and  turned  down,  either  one 
would  have  a  determinating  influence  on  the  smaller  projects. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Mr.  Davis,  may  I  ask  you  a  question  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man from  WTashington?  Are  the  funds  availabe  now  by  which  new  and  feasible 
.schemes  of  much  smaller  magnitude  can  be  begun? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Can  be  begun?    No,  not  in  the  Reclamation  Service  or  anywhere  else. 

Mr.  LEATHSRWOOD.  That  is,  new  feasible  schemes  of  any  size  can  not  be  begun? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  1  will  answer  that  in  the  way  in  which  I  have  always  answered  con- 
gressional committees  when  that  question  has  been  brought  up,  that  for  the  last  15 
years  at  least  the  work  under  way  by  the  Reclamation  Service  has  been  larger  than  was 
wise  to  be  taken  up  with  the  funds  in  sight,  and  that  is  still  the  case. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  I  quite  agree  with  you. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  One  of  my  principal  jobs,  and  one  of  the  most  disagreeable  ones  that 
I  have  had  in  the  past  "10  years,  has  been  to  prevent  the  taking  up  of  new  projects 
before  funds  are  available  therefor. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  If  we  can  have  additional  funds  provided  for  the  reclamation 
fund  in  order  to  start  a  very  small  project,  do  you  still  think  that  the  spending  of 
money  on  these  large  national  scope  projects  would  not  affect  the  beginning  of  a  new 
scheme  of  small  magnitude? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  think  so,  because  nobody  has  suggested  that  the  Columbia 
Basin  project  be  built  from  reclamation  funds.  Those  funds  have  not  been  adequate 
and  will  not  be  adequate  for  that  purpose  for  many  years.  The  reasons  for  these 
investigations  are  two :  First,  to  determine  what  are  the  natural  resources  and  how 
they  should  be  handled  in  relation  to  the  development  of  power  on  the  Columbia 
River  in  such  a  way  that  it  will  not  interfere  with  irrigation ;  second,  to  resolve  the 
doubts  concerning  its  feasibility  as  related  to  smaller  projects  in  the  same  area  that 
can  be  irrigated  from  other  sources. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Am  I  safe  in  assuming,  Mr.  Davis,  that  without  additional 
appropriations  by  Congress  into  the  reclamation  fund,  it  will  be  a  long,  long  time  before 
we  can  hope  for  any  new  projects? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Well,  no;  I  would  not  say  that.     That  is  a  very  indefinite  term. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Then  I  will  say  20  years. 

1  Mr.  DAVIS.  I  would  say  a  long  time  instead  of  a  long,  long  time.  That  is  dependent 
on  the  present  state  of  the  reclamation  fund  and  its  income.  There  are  required  now 
some  seventy-five  or  eighty  million  dollars  to  complete  the  projects  that  have  already 


72  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

been  taken  up  by  the  Reclamation  Service.  As  the  money  comes  in,  if  no  others  are 
taken  up,  that  would  require  10  or  12  years  to  complete  those  projects,  and  it  would 
not  be  necessary  to  postpone  taking  up  new  projects  that  long.  But  as  it  happens,  the 
projects  have  been  taken  up  by  one  authority  or  another.  We  have  kept  ahead  of  the 
available  funds  to  such  an  extent  that  the  point  at  which  a  new  project  could  be 
wisely  taken  up  has  not  approached  any  closer  in  the  last  10  years  than  it  was  10 
years  ago. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Then  if  you  say  a  long  period  instead  of  a  long,  long  period, 
you  might  easily  figure  that  a  conservative  estimate  would  be  15  years? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  5  or  10  years.  I  think  we  could  finish  all  projects  entirely  in  less 
than  10  years. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  How  much  is  available  for  construction  this  year? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  About  seven  or  eight  million  dollars  per  annum. 

Mr.  SUMMERS.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  operation  of  the  oil  and  gas  leasing 
bill  upon  your  revenues? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  receipts  from  the  oil  fund,  which  covers  the  royalty  from  oil 
development  for  the  fiscal  year  1920,  were  something  over  $4,000,000.  That  included 
a  lot  of  past  production  and  some  bonuses.  For  1921  it  was  about  a  million  dollars 
less,  being  something  over  $3,000,000.  For  the  next  fiscal  year  they  will  be  about 
$4,000,000,  according  to  computations.  Then  we  have  returns  from  the  sale  of  public 
lands,  about  a  million  dollars  a  year. 

Now,  in  stating  these  amounts  that  are  available  for  construction,  I  do  not  include 
the  amounts  annually  turned  over  for  maintaining  the  projects,  which  amounts  are 
large. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  it  or  not  a  fact  that  some  of  the  projects  now  under  con- 
struction, or  some  that  have  been  completed,  are  being  practically  doubled  in  capacity 
upon  the  theory  of  expansion  of  the  original  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  have  been  additions  taken  in,  which  were  only  tentatively  con- 
sidered at  first,  in  a  remote  way,  including  the  additional  use  of  the  w  aters  of  the  same 
rivers  by  construction  of  further  storage  facilities,  and  the  construction  of  further 
canals  is  being  undertaken  from  time  to  time. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  That  is  being  done  not  as  a  new  project  but  as  an  expansion 
of  an  old  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  And  in  some  cases  the  expanded  area  is  some  distance  from  the- 
original  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  do  not  recall  any  case  of  that  kind  but  that  might  possibly  be  so. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  I  have  in  mind  the  Minidoka  project  which  has  been  rather 
liberally  appropriated  for. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  The  area  that  is  being  appropriated  for  by  the  Government  is  imme- 
diately adjoining  the  project.  The  construction  of  the  American  Falls  reservoir  and 
the  irrigation  of  about  115,000  acres  of  land  is  in  addition  to  the  originally  conceived 
project,  that  is  true. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  The  bulk  of  the  land  is  some  distance  from  the  original  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  adjoins  the  Minidoka  project  as  close  as  it  is  possible  to  put  it. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  That  is,  the  two  tracts  are  contiguous? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes;  absolutely.  I  should  say  that  all  that  has  been  done  along  that 
line  has  been  done  under  the  supervision  of  Congress.  It  has  all  been  undertaken 
since  Congress  had  a  say  as  to  where  the  money  should  be  spent,  and  no  concealment 
of  facts  has  been  made. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Is  the  line  of  contiguity  of  any  considerable  length  between 
the  two? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  yes;  it  extends  longitudinally  through  the  tract.  That  is,  a  canal 
is  built  irrigating  a  portion  of  the  land  below  it  and  another  strip  of  land  running  along 
the  entire  length  of  the  area  is  proposed  above  that  tract. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  I  did  not  ask  the  question  in  any  spirit  of  criticism. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Oh,  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  But  I  was  wondering  how  long  these  expansion  schemes  would 
consume  the  available  money  rather  than  the  new  projects. 

Mr.  DAVIS.  It  is  true  there  has  been  considerable  expansion.  The  development  of 
the  Snake  River  by  large  storage  reservoirs  is  to  be  largely  carried  out  by  private 
funds.  I  think  the  Secretary  in  approving  that  proposition  was  largely  influenced 
by  that  fact.  There  have  been  about  32  private  companies  from  the  irrigation  dis- 
tricts and  canal  systems  that  have  entered  into  a  contract  to  pay  in  advance  their^ 
proportion  of  the  cost  of  the  project.  The  United  States  is  not  supposed  to  put  any- 
thing into  it  except  its  proportionate  share  for  reclamation  of  public  lands  which  are 
contiguous  to  the  original  project.  While  the  American  Falls  reservoir  has  for  many 


COLUMBIA   BASIX    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  73 

years  been  considered  as  the  key  to  the  development  of  the  Snake  River,  it  was  not 
in  contemplation  in  the  original  conception  of  the  Minidoka  project.  That  is,  it  was 
not  considered  as  a  part  of  that  project  but  it  was  contemplated  that  something  should 
be  done  there  sometime. 

Mr.  LEATHERWOOD.  Are  there  any  other  contiguous  tracts  that  maybe  made  later 
a  second  addition  to  the  Minidoka  project? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  There  are  other  tracts  of  land  that  might  be  included  by  the  construc- 
tion of  the  American  Falls  reservoir  at  the  capacity  of  which  it  is  capable.  They 
are  not  at  the  present  time  contemplated,  although  we  are  investigating  them  by 
money  put  up  by  the  States  and  by  private  individuals,  for  the  investigation  of  two 
tracts  which  would  furnish  sufficient  water  and  as  to  which  a  choice  would  have  to 
be  made  as  to  which  would1  utilize  sufficient  water  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  RAKER.  As  I  understand  your  answer  to  Mr.  Leatherwoqd,  you  made  a  remark 
a  while  ago  that  you  wanted  a  thorough  investigation  regarding  the  availability  of 
water  for  irrigation  which  would  apply  to  the  Columbia  Basin  project.  Now,. is  there 
any  lack  of  funds  or  lack  of  investigations  by  the  water  power  commission,  when  it 
starts  out  to  have  a  project  examined,  to  see  whether  or  not  they  will  grant  the  right 
to  a  power  company  to  use  the  water  at  various  points  along  the  river? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  I  can  not  answer  that  question  because  it  involves  the  intentions  of 
other  people  about  whose  intentions  I  am  not  informed,  but  I  can  see  how  there  might 
be  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  Federal  Power  Commission  as  to  whether  or  not  cer- 
tain permits  should  be  granted.  That  is  the  only  thing.  A  permit  may  be  granted 
that  would  interfere  with  the  proper  development  of  the  stream  if  it  had  no  restrictions 
upon  it,  and  at  the  same  time  it  might  be  possible  to  grant  that  permit  and  not  inter- 
fere with  the  stream.  Xow.  the  character  and  the  amount  of  restrictions  to  put  on 
are  as  important  as  the  granting  of  the  permit. 

Mr.  RAKER.  Xow,  I  was  on  that  water-power  committee  for  five  months  and  I  asked 
every  witness  that  came  before  that  committee  whether  or  not  it  would  permit  devel- 
opment not  only  for  power  purposes  but  for  irrigation,  and  you  will  find  that  every 
man  that  came  before  that  committee,  all  the  experts,  Secretary  Lane,  and  Secretary 
Baker,  agreed  that  it  would.  At  one  time  they  secured  in  the  bill  the  words  "and 
irrigation."  That  was  to  determine  the  feasibility  for  power  purposes  and  the  feas- 
ibility for  irrigation  purposes,  so  that  none  of  the  uses  for  any  particular  locality 
would  be  overlooked. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  I  think  the  thing  of  first  importance  in  the  arid  West  is  to  utilize  the 
water  regardless  of  the  power,  because  the  land  is  unlimited  and  the  water  is  limited. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  is  true,  and  the  water-power  bill  contains  that  provision,  and 
all  of  the  witnesses  testified  that  that  is  one  of  the  functions  in  that  respect,  that  no 
claims  would  be  turned  down  for  irrigation  if  it  is  more  valuable  for  irrigation  than 
for  power  purposes. 

Mr.  ARENTZ.  That  seems  to  be  the  only  thing  that  the  Federal  Power  Commission 
should  decide,  whether  the  water  is  more  valuable  for  irrigation  or  for  power. 

Mr.  RAKER.  That  seems  to  be  conceded,  and  I  am  going  to  ask  Mr.  Davis  if,  up 
to  the  present  time,  it  has  been  his  observation  that  either  one  of  these  uses  has  been 
overlooked  so  far  as  he  knows? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  No;  as  far  as  I  know  there  has  been  no  interference  with  irrigation  by 
any  license  granted  by  the  Federal  Power  Commission.  They  have  undertaken  a 
very  wise  policy  to  determine  in  what  manner  these  waters  may  be  utilized  and  the 
greatest  uses  that  can  be  made  for  irrigation  purposes.  In  the  agreement  which  has 
been  signed  by  the  Colorado  River  Commission  there  is  a  proviso  that  power  shall 
be  forever  subservient  to  irrigation,  and  that,  the  lawyers  tell  us— and  it  was  so  under- 
stood by  the  commission — would  mean  that  any  power  development  in  the  Colorado 
Basin  is  forever  subservient  to  irrigation,  and  the  water  can  be  taken  for  irrigation 
without  asking  their  permission  and  without  condemnation  or  compensation  of  any 
kind. 

Mr.  RAKER.  In  other  words,  power  projects  can  be  authorized  which  would  not 
interfere  in  any- way  at  all  with  the  water  for  irrigation  purposes  if  the  discharge  is 
provided  for  at  a  proper  location? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  both  uses  can  be  made  effective  to  the  full  extent  of  the  water 
available? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  That  is  very  often  the  case:  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  RAKER.  And  that  is  what  they  are  trying  to  do  in  this  instance? 

Mr.  DAVIS.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  are  no  further  questions,  this  concludes  the  hearing,  and 
the  committee  will  stand  adjourned. 

(Thereupon,  at  12.10  o'clock  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned.) 


74  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

[Session  Laws,  1921,  State  of  Washington.    Chapter  90.    (S.  B.  227.)    Land  settlement.] 

AN  ACT  Relating  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  State,  establishing  and  denning 
a  State  policy  for  land  settlement,  amending  section  4,  chapter  188,  Laws  of  1919,  adding  a  new  section 
to  said  chapter  188,  to  be  known  as  section  11,  and  providing  penalties  for  violations  thereof. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Washington: 

SECTION  1.  That  section  4  of  chapter  188,  Laws  of  1919.  be  amended  to  read  as 
follows: 

"SEC.  4.  The  board  shall  have  power: 

"To  investigate  and  select  for  settlement  suitable  areas  of  undeveloped  lands  in 
this  State  available  for  settlement. 

"To  purchase  and  acquire  on  behalf  of  the  State  such  privately  owned  lands  as  in 
its  judgment  are  available  for  settlement,  whenever  the  same  shall  be  within  the 
limits  of  an  approved  project  and  after  full  investigation  and  official  approval  thereof. 

"To  subdivide  any  lands  owned  by  the  State  and  found  available  for  settlement, 
including  lands  purchased  or  acquired  for  that  purpose,  into  tracts  suitable  for  farms 
and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

"To  make  on  any  such  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments  such  improvements  as 
may  be  necessary  to  render  the  same  habitable  and  productive. 

"To  accept  from  private  owners  deeds  or  other  instruments  of  trust  relating  to 
land  and  to  subdivide,  improve,  and  sell  such  lands. 

"To  lease  to  prospective  settlers  any  land  selected  by  the  board  of  settlement. 

"To  dedicate  to  public  use  appropriate  tracts  for  roads,  schoolhouses,  or  other  public 
purposes. 

"To  purchase  and  acquire  under  state  laws  any  state,  school  or  granted  lands  of  the 
State  wnich  the  board  shall  determine  are  available  for  settlement  under  the  provisions 
of  this  act,  whenever  the  same  shall  be  within  the  limits  of  an  approved  project  and 
after  full  investigation  and  official  approval  thereof. 

"To  purchase  and  acquire  lands  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  under  such 
conditions  as  may  be  deemed  advisable  for  the  purposes  of  this  act,  and  to  convey  the 
same  under  such  conditions  and  restrictions  as  may  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior. 

' '  To  arrange  with  the  Federal  Government  for  sharing  in  the  expense  of  furnishing 
agricultural  training  for  settlers  so  as  to  render  them  better  qualified  for  the  cultivation 
of  their  lands,  under  appropriate  conditions  of  supervision  by  the  Federal  Government. 

"To  sell  and  convey  such  improved  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments  subject  to 
the  limitations  of  this  act. 

"To  make  such  rules  and  regulations  and  perform  any  and  all  acts  as  may  be  neces- 
sary and  proper  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

"If  it  shall  appear  that  Federal  aid  and  cooperation  shall  not  be  available,  or  the 
board  shall  determine  to  adopt  and  proceed  with  any  land  settlement  project  without 
Federal  aid  and  cooperation,  then  and  in  such  event  the  board  may  acquire  lands  for 
such  land  settlement  project  and  conduct  their  settlement  with  moneys  from  the  State 
reclamation  fund  appropriated  for  land  settlement  purposes. 

"The  board  shall  have  power  and  it  shall  be  its  duty,  upon  request  of  any  land 
settlement  or  colonization  company  operating  in  the  State  of  Washington,  to  make,  or 
cause  to  be  made,  a  careful  examination  and,  providing  investigation  warrants,  to 
certify  to  the  following  conditions  in  reference  to  said  company  and  its  project : 

"(1)  That  the  land  is  suitable  to  agricultural  purposes  and  in  passing  upon  this 
feature  it  shall  first  procure  a  report  from  the  Washington  State  College  and  make 
such  further  investigations  as  the  board  deems  advisable. 

"(2)  That  its  location  in  reference  to  markets,  public  roads,  and  transportation 
facilities  makes  it  suitable  for  colonization  purposes. 

"(3)  That  the  proposed  plan  of  settlement  and  colonization  is  in  the  interest  of  the 
settlers  and  especially  in  reference  to  the  following  points: 

"(a)  The  price  at  which  the  land  is  proposed  to  be  sold. 

"(b)  The  aid  to  be  rendered  the  settlers  in  improving  the  same. 

"(c)  The  rate  of  interest  to  be  charged  and  the  length  of  time  within  which  pay- 
ments are  to  be  made. 

"(4)  That  provision  is  made  for  deferred  payments  on  the  amortization  plan  matur- 
ing in  not  less  than  20  years. 

"The  expense  incurred  in  making  such  examination  and  certification  shall  be  paid 
by  the  applicant  therefor. 

"Before  any  such  certificate  is  issued  such  settlement  and  colonization  company 
shall  fully  satisfy  the  board  that  it  is  able  to  and  will  faithfully  carry  out  its  plan  of 
settlement  and  colonization  and  all  contracts  entered  into  with  settlers. 


COLUMBIA   BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  75 

•'Whenever  any  such  certificate  shall  be  issued  it  shall  be  lawful  for  such  settlement 
and  colonization  company  to  advertise  the  fact  that  its  plan  of  settlement  and  coloniza- 
tion has  been  approved  by  the  State  of  Washington. 

"It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation  to  claim,  represent,  ad- 
vertise, or  hold  out  in  any  manner  that  the  board  has  issued  to  him  or  it  any  such  certifi- 
cate mentioned  in  section  1  of  this  act,  unless  such  certificate  has  actually  been  so- 
issued  and  unless  such  person,  firm,  or  corporation  shall  have  fully  complied  with, 
and  is  complying  with,. such  certificate  and  the  terms  and  conditions  therein  pre- 
scribed and  the  rules  and  regulations  of  said  board." 

SEC.  2.  That  there  be  added  to  chapter  188,  Laws  of  1919,  a  new  section  to  be  known 
as  section  11.  to  read  as  follows: 

"SEC.  11.  Any  person,  firm  or  corporation  who  shall  violate  any  of  the  provisions- 
of  this  act  shall  be  guilty  of  a  gross  misdemeanor." 

Passed  by  the  senate  March  3.  1921. 

Passed  by  the  house  March  7,  1921. 

Approved  by  the  governor  March  16,  1921. 


[Laws  of  1919.    State  of  Washington^    Chapter  136.    (S.  B.  257.)    Proposed  constitutional  amendment? 
as  to  power  of  eminent  domain.] 

AX  ACT  Providing  for  the  amendment  of  section  16  of  article  1  of  the  constitution  of  the-  State  of  Washing-- 
ton, relating  to  eminent  domain. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Washington: 

SECTION*  1.  That  at  the  general  election  to  be  held  in  this  State  on  the  Tuesday 
next  succeeding  the  first  Monday  in  November,  1920,  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
qualified  electors  of  the  State,  for  their  adoption  and  approval  or  rejection,  an  amend- 
ment to  section  16  of  article  1  of  the  constitution  of  the  State  of  Washington,  so  that 
the  same  shall  when  amended,  read  as  follows: 

"SEC.  16.  Private  property  shall  not  be  taken  for  private  use,  except  for  private 
ways  of  necessity,  and  for  drains,  flumes,  or  ditches  on  or  across  the  lands  of  others  for 
agricultural,  domestic,  or  sanitary  purposes.  No  private  property  shall  be  taken  or 
damaged  for  public  or  private  use  without  just  compensation  having  been  first  made,, 
or  paid  into  court  for  the  owner,  and  no  right  of  way  shall  be  appropriated  to  the  use 
of  any  corporation  other  than  municipal  until  full  compensation  therefor  be  first  made 
in  money,  or  ascertained  and  paid  into  court  for  the  owner,  irrespective  of  any  benefit 
from  any  improvement  proposed  by  such  corporation,  which  compensation  shall  he 
ascertained  by  a  jury,  unless  a  jury  be  waived,  as  in  other  civil  cases  in  courts  of  record, 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  law.  Whenever  an  attempt  is  made  to  take  private 
property  for  a  us.?  alleged  to  be  public,  tb.3  question  whether  the  contemplated  use  be 

regard 
private 
declared 
to  be  for  public  use." 

Passed  by  the  senate  March  8,  1919. 

Passed  by  the  house  March  11,  1919. 

Approved  by  the  governor  March  17,  1919. 


[Laws  of  1919.    State  of  Washington.    Chapter  158.    (H.  B.  200.)    State  reclamation  act.] 

AN  ACT  Providing  for  the  development  of  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  State  and  the  reclamation  o  i 
arid,  swamp,  overflow,  and  logged-off  lands,  establishing  a  State  reclamation  revolving-  fund,  and  pro- 
viding for  tax  levies  to  produce  revenues  therefor,  creating  a  State  reclamation  board  and  defining  its 
powers  and  duties,  conferring  certain  powers  upon  districts  organized  for  the  reclamation  of  lands,  and 
making  appropriations. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Washington: 
SECTION  1.  This  act  shall  be  known  and  cited  as  the  "State  reclamation  act.  " 
SEC.  2.  The  object  of  this  act  is  to  provide  for  the  reclamation  and  development  of, 
such  of  the  arid,  swam]),  overflow,  and  logged-off  lands  in  the  State  of  Washington 
as  shall  be  determined  to  be  suitable  and  economically  available  for,  reclamation, 
and  development  as  agricultural  lands,  and  the  State  of  Washington  in  the  exercise 
of  its  sovereign  and  police  powers  declares  the  reclamation  of  such  lands  to  be  a  State 
purpose  and  necessary  to  the  public  health,  safety,  and  welfare  of  ite  people.     For 
that  purpose  there  shall  be  and  hereby  is  established  a  department  of  State  govern- 
ment to  be  known  as  "The  State  Reclamation  Service  of  Washington,"  which  shall; 


76  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

consist  of  the  State  reclamation  board  and  such  field  experts  and  other  assistants 
and  employes  as  the  board  shall  from  time  to  time  deem  necessary. 

SEC.  3.  The  State  reclamation  board,  hereinafter  called  the  board,  shall  consist 
of  five  commissioners — the  State  commissioner  of  public  lands,  the  State  treasurer, 
the  State  hydraulic  engineer,  the  State  commissioner  of  agriculture,  and  the  presi- 
dent of  the  State  College  of  Washington,  ex  officio. 

The  board  shall,  on  its  organization  and  biennially  thereafter  on  the  1st  day  of  April, 
elect  from  among  its  memebers  a  chairman  and  a  secretary,  and  shall  maintain  offices  at 
the  State  capital  and  hold  such  regular  and  special  meetings  as  the  business  of  the 
.  department  shall  require,  and  keep  a  record  of  its  proceedings,  and  may  from  time  to 
time  adopt  rules  and  regulations  for  the  transaction  of  its  business.  Three  members 
of  the  board  shall  constitute  a  quorum,  and  may  exercise  all  the  power  and  authority 
conferred  on  the  board.  The  attorney  general  shall  be  the  legal  advisor  of  the  board". 
The  members  of  the  board  shall  receive  no  compensation  for  services  rendered  as  mem- 
bers, but  shall  be  reimbursed  for  their  actual  and  necessary  expenses  incurred  in  the 
performance  of  their  duties  as  members  of  the  board,  to  be  paid  from  the  moneys 
appropriated  for  the  administrative  expenses  of  the  board. 

SEC.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  there  is  hereby 
created  in  the  State  treasury  a  State  reclamation  revolving  fund,  hereinafter  called  the 
reclamation  fund,  which  shall  consist  of  all  sums  that  may  from  time  to  time  be  appro- 
priated thereto  by  the  legislature  from  other  funds  in  the  State  treasury;  all  gifts, 
donations,  bequests,  and  devises,  made  to  the  State  therefor,  and  the  proceeds  of  the 
sale  thereof;  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  or  redemption  of  and  the  interest  earned  by 
securities  purchased  or  acquired  with  the  moneys  thereof;  all  reimbursements  fo'r 
moneys  advanced  for  the  payment  of  assessments  on  State,  school,  granted  and  other 
public  lands  for  the  improvements  thereof,  as  hereinafter  provided;  and  all  taxes 
received  under  levies  authorized  by  the  legislature  therefor. 

Whenever  the  total  amount  in  the  reclamation  fund,  including  cash  on  hand, 
market  value  of  property,  and  par  value  and  accrued  interest  of  securities  owned, 
reimbursements  due  or  to  become  due  for  moneys  advanced  for  the  improvement  of 
State,  school,  granted,  and  other  public  lands,  and  all  uncollected  taxes,  including 
the  current  levy,  less  all  outstanding  warrants  drawn  against  such  fund,  shall  equal 
$5,000,000,  all  taxes  from  future  levies  authorized  by  this  act  made  therefor  shall  be 
paid  over,  to  the  respective  funds  in  the  State  treasury  from  which  moneys  have  been 
appropriated  for  the  reclamation  fund,  until  such  funds  are  reimbursed  for  all  sums  so 
appropriated. 

From  the  moneys  appropriated  from  the  reclamation  fund  there  shall  be  paid,  upon 
vouchers  approved  by  the  board  and  signed  and  attested  by  the  chairman  and  secre- 
tary, the  administrative  expenses  of  the  board  and  such  amounts  as  shall  be  found 
necessary  or  expedient  for  the  investigation  and  survey  of  reclamation  projects  pro- 
posed to  be  financed  in  whole  or  in  part  by  the  board,  and  such  amounts  as  may  be 
authorized  by  the  board  for  the  reclamation  of  logged-off  lands  and  for  the  reclamation 
of  lands  of  diking,  drainage,  diking  and  drainage,  and  irrigation  districts  duly  and 
regularly  organized  under  the  laws  of  this  State,  and  such  other  districts  as  shall  from 
time  to  time  be  authorized  by  law  for  the  reclamation  or  development  of  waste  or 
undeveloped  lands,  and  all  of  the  respective  districts  hereinabove  referred  to  «hall, 
for  the  purposes  of  this  act,  be  known  and  designated  herein  as  reclamation  districts. 

SEC.  5.  In  carrying  out  the  purposes  of  this  act  the  board  shall  be  authorized  and 
empowered : 

To  make  surveys  and  investigations  of  the  unreclaimed  and  undeveloped  lands  in 
this  State  and  to  determine  the  relative  agricultural  values,  productiveness  and  uses, 
and  the  feasibility  and  cost  of  reclamation  and  development  thereof. 

To  formulate  and  adopt  a  sound  policy  for  the  reclamation  and  development  of  the 
undeveloped  agricultural  resources  of  the  State  and  from  time  to  time  select  for  recla- 
mation and  development  such  lands  as  may  be  deemed  advisable,  and  the  board  may 
in  its  discretion  advise  as  to  the  formation  and  assist  in  the  organization  of  reclamation 
districts  under  the  laws  of  this  State. 

To  purchase  the  bonds  of  any  reclamation  district  whose  project  is  approved  by  the 
board  and  which  is  found  to  be  upon  a  sound  financial  basis  and  to  contract  with  any 
such  district  for  making  surveys  and  furnishing  engineering  plans  and  supervision 
for  the  construction  of  its  project  and  to  accept  the  bonds  of  such  district  in  payment 
therefor  and  to  expend  the  moneys  appropriated  from  the  reclamation  fund  in  the 
purchase  of  such  bonds  or  in  carrying  out  such  contracts. 

To  sell  and  dispose  of  any  reclamation  district  bonds  acquired  by  the  board  at  public 
or  private  sale  and  to  pay  the  proceeds  of  such  sale  into  the  reclamation  fund:  Pro- 
vided, That  such  bonds  shall  not  be  sold  for  less  than  the  purchase  price  plus  accrued 
interest. 


COLUMBIA   BASIX    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  77 

To,  whenever  it  shall  deem  it  advisable,  require  any  district  with  which  it  may 
contract,  to  provide  such  safeguards  as  it  may  deem  necessary  to  assure  bona  fide 
settlement  and  development  of  the  lands  within  such  district,  by  securing  from  the 
owners  of  lands  therein  agreements  to  limit  the  amount  of  their  holdings  to  such 
acreage  as  they  can  properly  farm  and  to  sell  their  excess  land  holdings  at  reasonable 
prices. 

To  clear  and  reclaim  logged-off  lands  in  the  manner  hereinafter  in  this  act  provided. 

To  employ  all  necessary  experts,  assistants,  and  employees  and  fix  their  com- 
pensation and  to  enter  into  any  and  all  contracts  and  agreements  necessary  to  carry 
out  the  purposes  of  this  act . 

To  have  the  assistance,  cooperation,  and  services  of,  and  the  use  of  the  records  and 
files  in,  all  the  departments  and  institutions  of  the  State,  particularly  the  office  of  the 
commissioner  of  public  lands,  the  State  department  of  agriculture,  the  office  of  the 
State  hydraulic  engineer,  the  bureau  of  farm  development,  the  bureau  of  statistics, 
agriculture,  and  immigration,  the  State  College  of  Washington,  and  the  University 
•of  Washington ;  and  all  State  officers  and  the  governing  authorities  of  all  State  insti- 
tutions are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  cooperate  with  the  board  in  furthering 
the  purposes  of  this  act. 

To  cooperate  with  the  United  States  in  any  plan  of  land  reclamation  or  land  settle- 
ment or  agricultural  development  which  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  may 
provide  and  which  may  affect  the  development  of  agricultural  resources  within  the 
State  of  Washington,  or  the  settlement  of  soldiers,  sailors,  and  other  worthy  persons, 
on  the  agricultural  lands  within  this  State,  and  the  board  shall  have  full  power  to 
carry  out  the  provisions  of  any  cooperative  land  settlement  act  that  may  b,e  enacted 
by  the  United  States. 

The  board  shall  prepare  and  report  to  the  legislature,  at  the  commencement  of  each 
biennial  session,  a  full  statement  of  its  operations  and  recommendations. 

SEC.  6.  The  board  shall  have  the  power  to  cooperate  and  to  contract  with  the  United 
States  for  the  reclamation  of  arid,  swamp,  overflow,  or  logged-off  lands  in  this  State 
by  the  board  or  by  the  United  States,  and  shall  have  the  power  to  contract  with  the 
United  States  for  the  handling  of  such  reclamation  work  by  the  United  States  and 
for  the  repayment  of  such  moneys  as  the  board  shall  invest  from  the  reclamation  fund, 
under  such  terms  and  conditions  as  the  United  States  laws  and  the  regulations  of 
the  Interior  Department  shall  provide  for  the  repaymnt  of  reclamation  costs  by  the 
lands  reclaimed. 

SEC.  7.  Every  diking,  drainage,  diking  and  drainage,  and  irrigation  district  duly 
and  regularly  organized  under  the  laws  of  this  State,  or  such  other  district  as  shall 
hereafter  be  authorized  by  law  and  organized  for  the  reclamation  or  development  of 
waste  or  undeveloped  lands,  shall  be  and  is  hereby  authorized  and  empowered  to 
enter  into  all  contracts  with  the  reclamation  board  for  the  reclamation  of  the  lands  of 
such  district  in  the  manner  provided  in  this  act,  or  such  manner  as  such  districts  are 
now  authorized  by  law  to  contract  with  the  United  States  or  with  individuals  or  cor- 
porations, for  the  making  of  surveys  and  furnishing  engineering  plans  and  supervision 
for  the  construction  of,  or  for  the  construction  of,  all  works  and  improvements  neces- 
sary for  the  reclamation  of  its  lands,  and  for  the  sale  or  delivery  of  its  bonds. 

SEC.  8.  Whenever  in  the  judgment  of  the  commissioner  of  public  lands  any  State, 
school,  granted,  or  other  public  lands  of  the  State  will  be  specially  benefited  by  any 
proposed  reclamation  project  approved  by  the  board,  he  may  consent  that  such  lands 
be  included  in  any  reclamation  district  organized  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  such 
reclamation  project,  and  in  that  event  the  reclamation  board  shall  be  authorized  to 
pay,  out  of  the  current  appropriations  from  the  reclamation  fund,  the  district  assess- 
ments levied  as  provided  by  law  against  such  lands,  and  any  such  assessments  paid 
shall  be  made  a  charge  against  the  lands  upon  which  they  were  levied,  and  the  amount 
thereof,  but  without  interest,  shall  be  added  to  the  appraised  value  and  included  in 
the  sale  price  of  such  lands  when  sold,  and  the  State  treasurer  shall,  upon  the  certifi- 
cate of  the  State  land  commissioner,  credit  such  amount  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale, 
when  received,  to  the  reclamation  fund. 

SEC.  9.  Whenever  the  commissioner  of  public  lands  shall  believe  that  any  tract 
of  cut-over  forest  or  logged-off  State,  school,  granted,  or  other  public  lands  of  the  State, 
is  of  such  quality  and  so  situated  that  it  may  be  profitably  cleared  and  made  ready  for 
cultivation  for  agricultural  purposes  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  he  may  request 
the  State  reclamation  board  to  make  a  survey  and  investigation  thereof  and  to  deter- 
mine the  cost  of  clearing  the  same  and  whether  such  clearing  will  increase  the  value 
of  the  land  sufficiently  to  warrant  the  expense. 

SEC.  10.  Upon  the  filing  of  such  request  by  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Lands  the 
board  may  in  its  discretion  cause  a  survey  and  investigation  of  the  lands  described 


78  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

in  the  request  to  be  made,  and  determine  whether  the  land  is  of  such  character  and 
eo  situated  that  it  can  be  profitably  cleared  and  made  ready  for  cultivation  for  agri- 
cultural purposes  under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  In  making  such  determination 
the  board  shall  take  into  consideration:  (a)  The  character  and  quantity  of  stumps  and 
debris  on  the  land  and  the  cost  of  removing  and  destroying  the  same:  and  (b)  the  char- 
acter of  the  soil,  its  depth  and  fertility,  the  number  and  kinds  of  crops  to  which  it  is 
adapted,  the  local  climatic  conditions,  the  local  annual  rainfall,  the  water  supply 
upon  the  land,  the  drainage,  the  number  and  extent  of  the  markets  accessible,  the 
distance  and  means  of  transportation  to  market,  the  amount  of  similar  land  already 
under  cultivation  and  accessible  to  the  same  market  or  markets,  and  the  ordinary 
margin  of  profit  per  acre  between  the  cost  of  production  and  the  market  price  of  the 
various  crops  to  which  the  land  is  adapted. 

Upon  completion  of  the  investigation  the  board  shall  make  a  detailed  report  of  its 
findings  and  furnish  a  copy  thereof  to  the  commissioner  of  public  lands  and  such  report 
shall  be  kept  on  file  for  the  information  of  the  board  and  the  commissioner  and  shall 
be  open  to  public  inspection. 

SEC.  11.  If  the  board  shall  determine  that  the  State  lands  investigated  as  provided 
in  the  preceding  section  can  be  profitably  cleared  and  made  ready  for  cultivation 
and  sold  at  an  advanced  price  sufficient  to  cover  the  cost  of  clearing,  it  may  cause  the 
same  to  be  cleared  and  pay  the  cost  of  such  clearing  out  of  the  moneys  appropriated 
from  the  reclamation  fund  for  the  reclamation  of  lands,  and  the  cost  of  such  clearing 
shall  be  made  a  charge  against  the  lands  cleared  and  included  in  the  sale  price  thereof 
when  sold,  and  such  lands  may  be  sold  upon  such  terms  as  to  deferred  payments, 
including  the  cost  of  clearing,  as  is  provided  by  law  for  the  sale  of  State,  school,  granted, 
or  other  p'ublic  lands  of  the  State. 

SEC.  12.  For  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  provisions  ot 
this  act,  the  State  board  of  equalization  shall,  beginning  the  fiscal  year  of  1919,  and 
annually  thereafter,  at  the  time  of  levying  taxes  for  State  purposes,  levy  upon  all 
property  subject  to  taxation,  and  the  proper  officers  shall  collect,  a  tax  of  one-half  of 
1  mill.  The  revenue  so  raised  shall  be  paid  into  the  State  treasury  and  credited  to  the 
State  reclamation  revolving  fund. 

SEC.  13.  There  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  genefal  fund  in  the  State  treasury 
into  the  State  reclamation  revolving  fund  the  sum  of  $100,000;  for  the  purpose  of  making 
surveys  and  investigations  of  unreclaimed  and  undeveloped  lands  in  this  State  and 
for  general  administrative  expenses  of  the  State  reclamation  board  there  is  hereby 
appropriated  out  of  the  State  reclamation  revolving  fund  the  sum  of  $50,000,  or  so  much 
thereof  as  may  be  necessary;  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act 
relating  to  the  purchase  of  the  bonds  of  reclamation  districts,  the  performance  of 
contracts  made  with  such  districts,  the  payment  of  reclamation  district  assessments 
levied  against  the  lands  of  the  State,  and  the  payment  of  the  cost  of  clearing  logged-off 
lands  of  the  State,  there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  State  reclamation  revolving 
fund  the  sum  of  $1,000,000  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary:  Provided,  That 
no  warrant  shall  be  drawn  upon  the  State  reclamation  revolving  fund  in  excess  of  the 
amount  in  the  State  treasury  to  the  credit  of  said  fund. 

SEC.  14.  If  any  section  or  provision  of  this  act  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  invalid  or 
unconstitutional,  such  adjudication  shall  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  act  as  a  whole 
or  any  section,  provision,  or  part  thereof  not  adjudged  invalid  or  unconstitutional. 

SEC.  15.  This  act  is  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace, 
health,  and  safety  and  shall  take  effect  immediately. 

Passed  the  house  March  6,  1919. 

Passed  the  senate  March  11,  1919. 

Approved  by  the  governor  March  18,  1919. 


[Laws  of  1919.    State  of  Washington.    Chapter  188.    (S.  B.  184.)    Land  settlement  act.] 

AN  ACT  Relating  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  State,  establishing  a  State  policy 
for  land  settlement,  defining  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  State  reclamation  board  in  reference  thereto, . 
and  making  appropriations  therefor. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Stale  of  Washington: 
SECTION  1.  This  act  shall  be  known  and  cited  as  the  "land  settlement  act." 
SEC.  2.  The  State  of  Washington  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  and  police  powers 
declares  that  the  settlement  of  such  portions  of  the  undeveloped  lands  in  this  State 
as  may  be  determined  to  be  suitable  and  economically  available  therefor  is  a  State 
purpose  and  is  necessary  to  the  public  health,  safety,  and  welfare  of  its  people.     In 
the  exercise  of  such  power  the  State,  acting  for  itself  and  in  cooperation  with  the 


COLUMBIA  BASIX    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  79 

United  States,  hereby  establishes  a  definite  land  policy  providing  means  whereby 
soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  and  others  who  have  served  with  the  armed  forces  of  the 
United  States  in  the  war  against  Germany  and  her  allies,  or  other  wars  of  the  United 
States,  hereinafter  generally  referred  to  as  "soldiers,"  and  also  industrial  workers 
and  other  American  citizens  desiring  a  rural  life,  may  settle  upon  and  become  owners 
of  small  improved  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  State  reclamation  board  created  by  the  sixteenth  legislature,  here- 
inafter called  the  ''board,"  shall  have  power  to  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  the  settlement  of  any  undeveloped  lands  in  this  State,  and  to  avail  itself 
of  any  authority  of  Federal  laws,  rules,  and  regulations  therefor  when  any  such 
settlement  project  shall  be  approved  and  adopted  by  both  the  Federal  Government 
and  said  board.  Before  said  board  shall  expend  any  of  the  moneys  appropriated 
for  the  settlement  of  land,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided,  it  shall  enter  into 
a  written  agreement  with  the  Federal  Government,  setting  forth  the  plan  and  basis 
of  cooperation  between  the  State  and  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  expendi- 
tures to  be  incurred  by  each,  and  the  provision  for  their  repayment. 

The  contract  with  the  United  States  may  provide  for  the  subdivision  of  the  lands 
and  other  work  needed  to  render  one  or  more  groups  of  farms  available  for  agriculture. 

The  board  is  authorized  to  secure  from  the  United  States,  subject  to  the  provisions 
of  Federal  laws,  the  necessary  funds  for  making  permanent  improvements  and  for 
the  purchase  of  necessary  equipment. 

SEC.  4.  The  board  shall  have  power: 

To  investigate  and  select  for  settlement  suitable  areas  of  undeveloped  lands  in  this 
State  available  for  settlement. 

To  purchase  and  acquire  on  behalf  of  the  State  such  privately  owned  lands  as  in  its 
judgment  are  available  for  settlement. 

To  subdivide  any  lands  owned  by  the  State  and  found  available  for  settlement, 
including  lands  purchased  or  acquired  for  that  purpose,  into  tracts  suitable  for  farms 
and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

To  make  on  any  such  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments  such  improvements  as 
may  be  necessary  to  render  the  same  habitable  and  productive. 

To  accept  from  private  owners  deeds  or  other  instruments  of  trust  relating  to  land  and 
to  subdivide,  improve,  and  sell  such  lands. 

To  lease  to  prospective  settlers  any  land  selected  by  the  board  for  settlement. 

To  dedicate  to  public  use  appropriate  tracts  for  roads,  schoolhouses,  or  other  public 
purposes. 

To  purchase  and  acquire  under  State  laws  any  State,  school,  or  granted  lands  of  the 
State  which  the  board  shall  determine  are  available  for  settlement  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act. 

To  purchase  and  acquire  lands  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  under  such 
conditions  as  may  be  deemed  advisable  for  the  purposes  of  this  act,  and  to  convey  the 
same  under  such  conditions  and  restrictions  as  may  be  approved  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior. 

To  arrange  with  the  Federal  Government  for  sharing  in  the  expense  of  furnishing 
agricultural  training  for  settlers  so  as  to  render  them  better  qualified  for  the  cultivation 
of  their  lands,  under  appropriate  conditions  of  supervision  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. 

To  sell  and  convey  such  improved  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments  subject  to  the 
limitations  of  this  act. 

To  make  such  rules  and  regulations  and  perform  any  and  all  acts  as  may  be  neces- 
sary and  proper  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

If  it  shall  appear  that  Federal  aid  and  cooperation  shall  not  be  available,  or  the 
board  shall  determine  to  adopt  and  proceed  with  any  land  settlement  project  without 
Federal  aid  and  cooperation,  then  and  in  such  event  the  board  may  acquire  lands  for 
such  land  settlement  project  and  conduct  their  settlement  with  moneys  from  the  State 
reclamation  fund. 

SEC.  5.  That  the  board  shall  give  to  soldiers  the  preference  right  to  purchase  or  lease 
such  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

A  qualified  applicant  must  be  a  citizen  >of  the  United  States  and  must  satisfy  the 
board  that  he  is  not  the  holder  of  agricultural  land  or  possessory  rights  therein  which, 
together  with  the  land  and  improvements  to  be  purchased  hereunder,  shall  exceed  a 
value  of  §15,000.  Xo  purchaser  shall  at  any  one  time  hold  more  than  one  farm  or  farm 
laborer's  allotment.  Every  purchaser  shall  satisfy  the  board  as  to  his  fitness,  both 
financial  and  otherwise,  to  cultivate  and  develop  the  same  successfully. 

Each  approved  applicant  shall  enter  into  a  contract  of  purchase  which,  shall  provide 
for  the  payment  of  the  purchase  price  of  the  land,  the  reclamation  costs,  and  the  farm 
improvements  and  other  charges,  if  any,  and  shall  require  the  purchaser  actually  to 

25410—22 6 


80   "  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

occupy  the  land  within  six  months  and  actually  to  reside  thereon  for  at  least  eight 
months  in  each  calendar  year  for  a  period  of  at  least  five  years,  unless  prevented  by 
illness  or  other  cause  satisfactory  to  the  board ;  and  other  absence  from  the  land  exceed- 
ing four  months  in  any  calendar  year  shall  be  a  breach  of  the  contract. 

The  contract  shall  provide  that  it  shall  not  be  assigned  without  the  consent  of  the 
board. 

The  purchase  price  of  the  land  shall  be  paid  in  annual  installments  to  be  fixed  by 
the  board  for  a  total  period  of  not  to  exceed  40  years,  with  interest  on  deferred  payments 
from  the  date  of  the  contract  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

Title  to  the  land  shall  not  pass  until  full  payment  has  been  made  for  the  land  and 
improvements. 

SEC.  6.  The  lands  disposed  of  under  this  act  shall  be  leased  or  sold,  in  accordance 
with  regulations  adopted  by  the  board,  after  public  notice  in  at  least  one  newspaper 
published  in  the  State  and  of  general  circulation  therein,  and  one  newspaper  pub- 
lished in  the  county  where  the  land  is  situated ,  once  a  week  for  five  consecutive  weeks, 
the  first  date  of  publication  being  at  least  60  days  prior  to  the  date  of  lease  or  sale, 
setting  forth  generally  the  location  of  the  land  and  the  terms  of  lease  or  sale  and  stating 
that  detailed  information  can  be  obtained  at  the  office  of  the  board,  and  such  other 
convenient  places  as  are  designated  in  the  notice. 

SEC.  7.  That  the  board  shall  investigate  land  settlement  conditions  in  other  States 
and  elsewhere.  The  board  shall  report  biennially  to  the  legislature,  giving  a  full 
statement  of  its  operations  and  recommendations  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and 
shall  furnish  a  copy  of  its  report  to  the  secretary  of  the  interior. 

SEC.  8.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  relating  to  acquir- 
ing lands  and  improving  the  lands  of  the  State,  and  the  lands  acquired  or  taken  in 
trust  under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  State 
reclamation  revolving  fund  the  sum  of  $150,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  neces- 
sary ;  for  the  administrative  expenses  of  the  board  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this 
act  there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  general  fund  the  sum  of  §10,000,  or  so  much 
thereof  as  may  be  necessary:  Provided,  That  no  warrant  shall  be  drawn  upon  the 
State  reclamation  revolving  fund  in  excess  of  the  amount  in  the  State  treasury  to  the 
credit  of  said  fund. 

SEC.  9.  If  any  part  of  this  act  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  invalid  or  unconstitutional, 
such  adjudication  shall  not  affect  the  validity  or  constitutionality  of  the  act  as  a 
whole,  or  of  the  part  thereof  not  adjudged  invalid  or  unconstitutional. 

SEC.  10.  This  act  is  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of  the  public  peace, 
health,  and  safety,  and  shall  take  effect  immediately. 

Passed  the  senate  March  8,  1919. 

Passed  the  house  March  11,  1919. 

Approved  by  the  governor  March  20,  1919. 


(No.  15620.  En  Bane.  March  30,  1920.)  The  State  of  Washington,  on  the  relation 
of  the  State  reclamation  board  et  al.,  plaintiff,  v.  C.  W.  Clausen,  as  State  auditor, 
respondent. 

Taxation  (5) — Restrictions — Public  purpose. — No  funds  can  be  raised  by  taxation 
except  for  a  public  purpose. 

Constitutional  law  (3) — Rule  of  construction. — A  statute  will  not  be  declared  uncon- 
stitutional unless  it  clearly  so  appears,  and  this  rule  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  an  act 
authorizing  the  levy  of  a  tax  for  a  public  purpose. 

Taxation  (5) — Restrictions — Public  purpose — Land  development  act. — The  land 
settlement  act.  Laws,  1919,  page  583,  authorizing  the  raising  of  funds  by  taxation  for 
the  purchase,  improvement,  and  settlement  of  undeveloped  agricultural  lands,  to  be 
disposed  of  by  the  State  to  private  individuals,  is  not  unconstitutional  as  levying  a  tax 
for  other  than  a  public  purpose,  the  legislature,  by  the  act,  having  decided  that  it  was  a 
public  purpose. 

Constitutional  law  (103,  104) — Discrimination — Land  development  act. — The  land 
settlement  act,  Laws  1919,  page  583,  for  the  development  of  agricultural  lands  to  be 
purchased,  improved,  and  sold  by  the  State,  is  not  unconstitutional  in  that  it  discrimi- 
nates in  favor  of  agricultural  lands. 

Same  (100,  102) — Privileges  and  immunities — Preference  rights  to  soldiers. — The 
land  settlement  act,  Laws  1919,  page  583,  for  the  development  of  agricultural  lands, 
giving  soldiers  a  preference  right  of  purchase,  does  not  violate  the  equal  privileges  and 
immunity  guaranty  of  the  constitution. 

Same  (129)— Due  process— Taxation— Public  purpose.— Since  the  land  settlement 
act,  Laws  1919,  page  583,  does  not  provide  for  a  tax  for  other  than  a  public  purpose,  it 


COLUMBIA    BASIX    IRRIGATION    PROJECT.  81 

does  not  violate  the  due  process  clause  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Federal 
Constitution. 

.Mackintosh  and  Mount,  JJ.,  dissent. 

Application  filed  in  the  supreme  court  November  4,  1919,  for  a  writ  of  mandamus 
to  compel  the  State  auditor  to  issue  a  warrant  to  relator  in  payment  for  land  pur- 
chased by  the  State  reclamation  board  under  the  land  settlement  act.  Granted. 

The  attorney  general  and  Glenn  J.  Fairbrook,  assistant,  for  relators. 

Frank  C.  Owings  for  respondent. 

Parker,  J. — This  is  an  original  mandamus  proceeding  in  this  court  wherein  the 
relators  seek  a  writ  of  mandate  to  compel  the  State  auditor  to  issue  a  warrant  against 
the  State  reclamation  revolving  fund  to  the  relator,  George  J.  Hurley,  in  payment 
for  160  acres  of  land  purchased  from  him  by  the  State  reclamation  board  under  the 
land  settlement  act.  Laws  of  1919,  chapter  188,  page  583.  The  audoitr  has  refused 
to  issue  the  warrant  as  demanded  of  him,  basing  his  refusal  upon  the  sole  ground  that 
the  land  settlement  act  is  unconstitutional. 

To  the  end  that  we  have  clearly  before  us  the  full  purpose  and  scope  of  the  land 
settlement  act,  we  deem  it  desirable  at  the  outset  to  here  quote  the  larger  portion  of 
it,  as  follows: 

AX  ACT  Relating  to  the  upbuilding  of  the  agricultural  resources  of  the  State,  establishing  a  State  policy 
ior  land  settlement,  defining  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  State  reclamation  board  in  reference  thereto, 
and  making  appropriations  therefor. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Legislature  of  the  Slate  oj  Washington: 

SECTION  1.  This  act  shall  be  known  and  cited  as  the  "land  settlement  act." 

SEC.  2.  The  State  of  Washington  in  the  exercise  of  its  sovereign  and  police  powers 
declares  that  the  settlement  of  such  portions  of  the  undeveloped  lands  in  this  State 
as  may  be  determined  to  be  suitable  and  economically  available  therefor  is  a  State 
purpose  and  is  necessary  to  the  public  health,  safety,  and  welfare  of  its  people.  In 
the  exercise  of  such  power  the  State,  acting  for  itself  and  in  cooperation  with  the 
United  States,  hereby  establishes  a  definite  land  policy  providing  means  whereby 
soldiers,  sailors,  marines,  and  others  who  have  served  with  the  armed  forces  of  the 
United  States  in  the  war  against  Germany  and  her  allies,  or  other  wars  of  the  United 
States,  hereinafter  generally  referred  to  as  "soldiers,"  and  also  industrial  workers 
and  other  American  citizens  desiring  a  rural  life,  may  settle  upon  and  become  owners 
of  small  improved  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

SEC.  3.  That  the  State  reclamation  board  created  by  the  sixteenth  legislature, 
hereinafter  called  the  ''board,"  shall  have  power  to  cooperate  with  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment in  the  settlement  of  any  undeveloped  lands  in  this  State. 

******* 

SEC.  4.  The  board  shall  have  power: 

To  investigate  and  select  for  settlement  suitable  areas  of  undeveloped  lands  in  this 
State  available  for  settlement. 

To  purchase  and  acquire  on  behalf  of  the  State  such  privately  owned  lands  as  in 
its  judgment  are  available  for  settlement. 

To  subdivide  any  lands  owned  by  the  State  and  found  available  for  settlement, 
including  lands  purchased  or  acquired  for  that  purpose,  into  tracts  suitable  for  farms 
and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

To  make  on  any  such  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments  such  improvements  as 
may  be  necessary  to  render  the  same  habitable  and  productive. 

To  accept  from  private  owners  deeds  or  other  instruments  of  trust  relating  to  land 
and  to  subdivide,  improve,  and  sell  such  lands. 

To  lease  to  prospective  settlers  any  land  selected  by  the  board  for  settlement. 

To  dedicate  to  public  use  appropriate  tracts  for  roads,  schoolhouses,  or  other  public 
purposes. 

To  purchase  and  acquire  under  State  laws  any  State,  school,  or  granted  lands  of 
the  State  which  the  board  shall  determine  are  available  for  settlement  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act. 

To  purchase  and  acquire  lands  in  cooperation  with  the  United  States  under  such 
conditions  as  may  be  deemed  advisable  for  the  purposes  of  this  act,  and  to  convey 
the  same  under  such  conditions  and  restrictions  as  may  be  approved  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior. 

To  arrange  with  the  Federal  Government  for  sharing  in  the  expense  of  furnishing 
agricultural  training  for  settlers  so  as  to  render  them  better  qualified  for  the  cultivation 
<>t  their  lands,  under  appropriate  conditions  of  supervision  by  the  Federal  Government. 

To  sell  and  convey  such  improved  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments  subject  to 
the  limitations  of  this  act. 

To  make  such  rules  and  regulations  and  perform  any  and  all  acts  as  may  be  necessary 
and  proper  for  the  purple  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act.  *  *  * 


82  COLUMBIA  BASIX   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

SEC.  5.  That  the  board  shall  give  to  soldiers  the  preference  right  to  purchase  or 
lease  such  farms  and  farm  laborer's  allotments. 

A  qualified  applicant  must  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and  must  satisfy  the 
board  that  he  is  not  the  holder  of  agricultural  land  or  possessory  rights  therein  which . 
together  with  the  land  and  improvements  to  be  purchased  hereimder.  shall  exceed  a 
value  of  $15,000.  No  purchaser  shall  at  any  one  time  hold  more  than  one  farm  or 
farm  laborer's  allotment.  Every  purchaser  shall  satisfy  the  board  as  to  his  fitness, 
both  financial  and  otherwise,  to  cultivate  and  develop  the  same  successfully. 

Each  approved  applicant  shall  enter  into  a  contract  of  purchase  which  shall  provide 
for  the  payment  of  the  purchase  price  of  the  land,  the  reclamation  costs  and  the  farm 
improvements  and  other  charges,  if  any.  and  shall  require  the  purchaser  actually  to 
occupy  the  land  within  six  months  and  actually  to  reside  thereon  for  at  least  eight 
months  in  each  calendar  year  for  a  period  of  at  least  five  years,  unless  prevented  by 
illness  or  other  cause  satisfactory  to  the  board;  and  other  absence  from  the  land 
exceeding  four  months  in  any  calendar  year  shall  be  a  breach  of  the  contract. 

The  contract  shall  provide  that  it  shall  not  be  assigned  withoiit  the  consent  of  the 
board. 

The  purchase  price  of  the  land  shall  be  paid  in  annual  installments  to  be  fixed  by 
the  board  for  a  total  period  of  not  to  exceed  40  years,  with  interest  on  deferred  payments 
from  the  date  of  the  contract  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum. 

Title  to  the  land  shall  not  pass  until  full  payment  has  been  made  for  the  land  and 
improvements. 

SEC.  6.  The  lands  disposed  of  under  this  act  shall  be  leased  or  sold,  in  accordance 
with  regulations  adopted  by  the  board,  after  public  notice  in  at  least  one  newspaper 
published  in  the  State  and  of  general  circulation  therein,  and  one  newspaper  pub- 
lished in  the  county  where  the  land  is  situated,  once  a  week  for  five  consecutive  weeks, 
the  first  date  of  publication  being  at  least  60  days  prior  to  the  date  of  lease  or  sale,  set- 
ting forth  generally  the  location  of  the  land  and  the  terms  of  lease  or  sale  and  stating 
that  detailed  information  can  be  obtained  at  the  office  of  the  board  and  such  other 
convenient  places  as  are  designated  in  the  notice. 

•***##** 

SEC.  8.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act  relating  to  acquiring 
lauds  and  improving  the  lands  of  the  State,  and  the  lands  acquired  or  taken  in  trust 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act,  there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  State  reclama- 
tion revolving  fund  the  sum  of  $150,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary,  for 
the  administrative  expenses  of  the  board  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  this  act 
there  is  hereby  appropriated  out  of  the  general  fund  the  sum  of  $10,000,  or  so  much 
thereof  as  may  be  necessary:  Provided,  That  no  warrant  shall  be  drawn  upon  the 
State  reclamation  revolving  fund  in  excess  of  the  amount  in  the  State  treasury  to  the 
credit  of  said  fund. 

SEC.  9.  If  any  part  of  this  act  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  invalid  or  unconstitutional, 
such  adjudication  shall  not  affect  the  validity  or  constitutionality  of  the  act  as  a 
whole,  or  of  the  part  thereof  not  adjudged  invalid  or  unconstitutional.  * 

The  State  reclamation  act,  Laws  of  1919,  chapter  158.  page  442,  provides  for  the 
composition  and  organization  of  the  State  reclamation  board  mentioned  in  the  above- 
quoted  portion  of  section  3  of  the  land  settlement  act.  The  State  reclamation  act 
also  renders  it  plain  that  the  State  reclamation  revolving  fund  from  which  the  appro- 
priation made  by  the  above-quoted  section  8  is,  and  is  to  become,  largely,  if  not 
wholly,  the  product  of  taxes  levied  and  to  be  levied  upon  all  property  in  the  State 
subject  to  taxation  in  the  same  manner  as  the  State  general  taxes  are  levied.  In 
view  of  the  express  provisions  of  section  9  above  quoted,  we  need  only  concern  our- 
selves in  this  case  with  the  question  of  the  constitutionality  of  the  act  in  so  far  as  it 
authorizes  the  expenditure  of  public  funds  raised  by  taxation  in  the  purchase  by  the 
reclamation  board  of  land  to  be  subdivided,  improved,  and  disposed  of  as  provided 
by  the  terms  of  the  act,  since  we  do  not  understand  the  contention  here  made  in 
support  of  the  auditor's  refusal  to  issue  the  warrant  as  demanded  of  him  to  be  rested 
upon  any  other  grounds  of  unconstitutionally  than  that  the  act.  in  so  far  as  it  author- 
izes the  expenditure  of  public  funds  raised  by  taxation,  is  in  excess  of  legislative 
constitutional  power  and  that  it  is  in  effect  an  exercise  of  the  power  to  tax  and  to 
expend  public  funds  so  raised  for  a  purpose  not  public  but  private — that  is,  for  a 
purpose  not  governmental  in  the  sense  that  such  purpose  is  not  a  legitimate  function 
of  government. 

We  must  of  course  proceed  with  our  inquiry,  having  in  view  the  elementary  prin- 
ciple that  a  tax  can  be  lawfully  levied  and  the  public  funds  so  raised  lawfully 
expended  only  for  a  public  purpose.  The  learned  author.  Gray,  in  his  work  entitled 
"Limitations  on  Taxing  Power,"  sections  169,  170,  well  states  this  elementary  prin- 
ciple as  follows: 


COLUMBIA   BASIX    IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  83 

"In  all  the  definitions  of  taxation  and  taxes,  one  element  appears  most  promi- 
nently, to  wit.  the  necessity  for  a  public  purpose  to  justify  the  exercise  of  the  taxing 
power.  Xo  principle  of  law  is  better  established  than  this:  That  taxes  can  only  be 
laid  for  public  purposes:  and  that  a  tax  laid  for  a  private  purpose  or  to  bestow  some 
private  benefit  upon  some  individual  or  individuals  is  void,  regardless  of  the  absence 
of  express  constitutional  prohibitions.  * 

"This  limitation  upon  the  taxing  power  i?  based  upon  and  derived  from  the  inherent 
purposes  of  the  State  as  a  social  organization." 

The  following  authorities,  and  many  others  which  might  be  cited,  leave  no  room 
to  doubt  this  as  being  a  settled  rule  "of  American  jurisprudence:  Judson.  Taxation 
(2d  ed.).  section  376;  Cooley,  Taxation  (3d  ed.),  page  181.  The  guaranty  of  section 
3,  article  1.  of  our  State  constitution  that  "no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
or  property  without  due  process  of  law,"  and  the  like  guaranty  of  the  fourteenth 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  are  manifestly  all  that  this 
principle  needs  to  rest  upon. 

Our  problem,  then,  is  reduced  to  this,  is  the  raising  of  funds  by  taxation  and  the 
expenditure  thereof  for  the  purchase  of  land  to  the  end  that  it  be  subdivided,  improved, 
and  disposed  of  as  by  the  terms  of  this  act  provided,  the  exercise  of  the  power  of 
taxation  and  the  expenditure  of  public  funds  for  a  public  purpose?  It  may  well  be 
doubted  that  there  has  ever  come  to  the  American  courts  any  more  vexatious  question 
than  that  of  determining  whether  or  not  a  particular  purpose  for  which  public  funds 
were  sought  to  be  raised  by  taxation  and  expended  is  a  public  purpose,  when  the 
particular  purpose  in  question  lay  within  that  twilight  zone  wherein  the  minds  may 
reasonably  differ  as  to  such  purpose  being  a  public  one;  the  bounds  of  which  zone  are 
ever  changing  with  the  passing  of  time,  and  within  which  new  problems  of  public 
welfare  always  first  appear.  That  such  a  question,  when  arising  in  the  courts,  has 
proven  so  vexatious  is,  we  apprehend,  because  of  its  inherent  nature,  in  that,  in  its 
last  analysis,  it  is  not  one  of  exclusive  legal  logic,  but  is  one  more  or  less  of  policy 
and  wisdom,  properly  determinable  in  the  light  of  public  welfare,  present  and  future, 
in  a  broad  sense;  and  hence  is  not  a  pure  judicial  law  question,  except  in  those  cases 
clearly  outside  of  the  twilight  zone  we  have  alluded  to. 

Some  50  years  ago  it  became  a  much-debated  question  in  this  country  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  levying  of  a  tax  and  the  expenditure  of  public  funds  raised  thereby  for  the 
purpose  of  construction  or  to  aid  in  the  construction  of  a  railroad  in  a  State  or  a  com- 
munity of  the  people  so  taxed  was  the  exercise  of  the  taxing  power  and  the  expendi- 
ture of  public  money  for  a  public  purpose.  Different  State  courts,  the  judges  of  which 
were  counted  of  eminent  legal  learning,  even  in  a  time  of  great  judges  and  great 
lawyers,  entertained  opposing  views  upon  this  question.  Touching  the  real  nature 
of  the  question  and  recognizing  that  it  lies  very  close  to  that  line  of  uncertain  location 
dividing  judicial  from  legislative  functions,  in  a  decision  holding  that  such  purpose 
was  public,  or  rather  that  the  court  could  not  say  that  it  was  not  public  when  the 
legislature  authorizing  the  levy  of  the  tax  for  the  purposes  had,  in  effect,  determined 
that  it  was  public,  Justice  Ladd.  speaking  for  the  New  Hampshire  court,  in  Perry  v. 
Keene  (56  N.  H.  514,  531),  said: 

"Where  is  the  line  that  divides  the  province  of  the  court  from  that  of  the  legis- 
lature in  a  matter  of  this  sort?  The  court  is  to  expound  and  administer  the  laws, 
and  there  the  judicial  function  and  duty  end.  How  much  of  the  question,  whether 
a  given  object  is  public,  lies  within  the  province  of  the  law,  and  how  much  in  the 
domain  of  political  science  and  statesmanship?  When  the  judge  has  declared  all 
the  law  that  enters  into  the  problem,  how  much  is  still  left  to  the  determination  of 
the  legislator?  Admitting,  as  has  indeed  been  more  than  intimated  in  this  State 
(Concord  Railroad  v.  Greeley,  17  N.  H.  57),  that  it  is  for  the  court  finally  to  determine 
whether  the  use  is  public,  what  is  the  criterion?  What  are  the  rules  which  the  law 
furnishes  to  the  court  wherewith  to  eliminate  a  true  answer  to  the  inquiry?  In 
what  respect  does  the  question  as  presented  to  the  court  differ  from  the  same  ques- 
tion as  presented  to  the  legislature?  If  the  courts  stop  when  they  reach  the  borders 
of  legislative  ground,  how  far  can  they  proceed? 

"If  the  legislature  should  take  the'property  of  A,  or  the  property  of  all  the  tax- 
payers in  the  town  of  A,  and  hand  it  over,  without  consideration,  without  pretence  of 
any  public  obligation  or  duty,  to  B,  to  be  used  by  him  in  buying  a  farm,  or  building 
a  house,  or  setting  himself  up  in  business,  the  case  would  be  so  clear  that  the  common 
sense  of  everyone  would  at  once  say  the  limits  of  legislative  power  had  been  over- 
stepped by  a  taking  of  private  property  and  devoting  it  to  a  private  use.  That  is  the 
broad  ground  upon  which  such  cases  as  Allen  r.  Jay,  60  Me.  124;  Lowell  r.  Boston, 
111  Mass.  454;  and  The  Citizens  Loan  Association  r.  Topeka,  Sup.  Ct.  U.  S.  (not  yet 
reported  (.were  decided.  And  yet,  what  rule  of  law  do  the  courts  find  to  aid  them  in 
thus  revising  the  judgment  of  the  legislature?  Is  it  not  clear  that  the  question  they 


84  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

pass  upon  is  the  same  question  as  that  decided  by  the  legislature,  and  that  they  must 
determine  it  in  the  same  way  the  legislature  has  done,  simply  by  the  exercise  of 
reason  and  judgment?  What  is  it  that  settles  the  character  of  a  given  purpose,  in 
respect  of  its  being  public  or  otherwise?  It  has  been  said  that  for  the  legislature  to 
declare  a  use  public  does  not  make  it  so  (17  X.  H.  57).  and  the  same  may  certainly 
be  said  with  equal  truth  of  a  like  declaration  by  the  court.  A  judicial  christening  can 
no  more  affect  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  than  a  legislative  christening.  Judging 
a  priori,  and  without  some  knowledge  of  the  wants  of  mankind  when  organized  in 
communities  and  States,  I  do  not  quite  understand  how  it  could  be  predicated  of 
any  use,  that  it  is  per  se  public,  as  is  said  by  Dixon.  C.  J..  in  Whiting  v.  Sheboyean 
Railway  Co.  (9  Am.  Law  Reg.  (N.  S.).  161)." 

Of  light,  air,  water,  etc.,  the  common  bounties  of  providence,  it  might,  indeed,  be 
said  beforehand  that  they  are  in  a  very  broad  sense  public;  but  it  is  not  of  such  uses 
that  we  are  speaking.  ^Vithout  knowledge  of  human  nature,  knowledge  derived  from 
experience  and  observation  of  what  may  be  needful  for  the  comfort,  well-being,  and 
prosperity  of  the  people  of  the  State  advanced  in  civilization— and  knowledge,  gained 
in  the  same  way,  as  to  what  necessary  conditions  of  their  welfare  will  be  supplied  by 
private  enterprise,  and  what  will  go  unsupplied  without  interference  by  the  State-^- 
I  do  not  see  how  any  use  could  be  said  to  be  per  se  public,  or  how  either"  a  legislature, 
or  a  court,  could  form  a  judgment  that  would  not  be  founded  almost  wholly  upon 
theory  and  conjecture.  No  one  doubts  that  the  building  and  maintaining  of  our 
common  highways  is  a  public  purpose.  Why?  Certainly  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
they  furnish  facilities  for  travel,  the  transmission  of  intelligence,  and  the  transportation 
of  goods.  But  why  should  the  State  take  this  matter  under  its  fostering  care,  imposing 
upon  the  people  a  very  great  yearly  burden  in  the  shape  of  taxes  for  their  support 
any  more  than  many  others  that  might  be  mentioned,  of  equal  and  perhaps  greater 
importance  to  its  citizens?  Is  it  of  greater  concern  to  the  citizen  that  ne  should  have 
a  road  to  travel  on,  when  he  desires  to  visit  his  neighbor  in  the  next  town,  or  transport 
the  products  of  his  farm  or  of  his  factory  to  market  and  bring  back  the  commodities  for 
which  they  may  be  exchanged,  than  that  he  should  have  a  mill  to  grind  his  corn — a 
tanner,  a  shoemaker,  and  a  tailor  to  manufacture  his  raw  materials  into  clothing, 
wherewith  his  body  may  be  covered?  Doubtless  highways  are  a  great  public  benefit. 

Without  them  I  suppose  the  whole  State  would  soon  return  to  its  primal  condition 
of  a  howling  wildderness,  fit  only  for  the  habitation  of  wild  beasts  and  savages.  How 
would  it  be  if  there  were  no  mills  for  the  manufacture  of  lumber,  no  joiners  or  masons 
to  build  houses,  no  manufacturers  of  cloth,  no  merchants  or  tradesmen  to  assist  in  the 
exchange  of  commodities?  These  suppositions  may  appear  somewhat  fanciful,  but 
they  illustrate  the  inquiry,  Why  is  the  building  of  roads  to  be  regarded  as  a  public 
service,  while  many  other  things  equally  necessary  for  the  upholding  of  life,  the 
security  of  property,  the  preservation  of  learning,"  morality,  and  religion,  are  by 
common  consent  regarded  as  private,  and  so  left  to  the  private  enterprise  of  the 
citizens?  The  answer  to  this  question,  surely,  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  abstract 
principle  of  law.  It  is  essentially  a  conclusion  of  fact  and  public  policy,  the  result  of 
an  inquiry  into  the  individual  necessities  of  every  member  of  the  community  (which 
in  the  aggregate  show  the  character  and  urgency  of  the  public  need),  and  the  likelihood 
that  those  necessities  will  be  supplied  without  interference  from  the  State.  Obviously 
it  bears  a  much  closer  resemblance  to  the  deduction  of  a  politician  than  the  application 
of  a  legal  principle  by  a  judge.  *  *  * 

"Enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  delicate  nature  of  the  task  imposed  upon  the 
court  when  they  are  called  upon  to  revise  the  judgment  of  the  legislature  in  a  matter 
of  this  description.  It  is  especially  delicate  for  two  reasons — first,  because  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  legislature,  with  respect  to  the  whole  subject  of  levying  taxes,  is  so  very 
large  and  their  power  so  exclusive  that  it  is  not  always  easy  to  say  when  the  limits  of 
that  discretion  and  power  have  been  passed:  and,  "second,  because  the  rule  to  be 
applied  is  furnished,  not  so  much  by  the  law  as  by  those  general  considerations  of 
public  policy  and  political  economy  to  which  allusion  has  been  made.  I  do  not 
deny  the  power  and  duty  of  the  court,  when  private  rights  of  property  are  in  question. 
to  settle  those  right*  according  to  a  just  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  and  the 
discharge  of  that  duty  may  involve  a  revision  of  the  judgment  of  the  legislature  upon 
a  question  which  like  this  partakes  more  or  less  of  a  political  character.  But  before 
the  court  can  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  legislature  and  the  Executive  and  declare 
a  statute  levying  or  authorizing  a  tax  to  be  inoperative  and  void  a  very  clear  case 
must  be  shown. 

"After  the  legislative  and  the  executive  have  both  decided  that  the  purpose  for 
which  a  tax  is  laid  is  public  nothing  short  of  a  moral  certainty  that  a  mistake  has  been 
made,  can.  in  my  judgment,  warrant  the  court  in  overruling  that  decision,  especially 
when  nothing  better  can  be  set  up  in  its  place  than  the  naked  opinion  ot  the  court  as 
to  the  character  of  the  use  proposed." 


COLUMBIA    BASIX    IRRIGATION    PROJECT.  85 

These  observations  of  that  learned  justice,  though  made  in  the  centennial  year  of 
our  independence,  nearly  a  half  century  ago.  near  the  beginning  of  the  expansion  of 
governmental  activities  in  the  interest  of  public  welfare,  are,  we  apprehend,  as 
illuminating,  touching  the  real  nature  of  our  present  problem,  as  can  be  found  in  our 
legal  literature.  Plainly,  since  a  correct  solution  of  our  present  problem,  because  of 
its  inherent  nature,  calls  for  the  consideration  of  something  more  than  pure  legal  prin- 
ciples, suggests  that  we  exercise  a  great  degree  of  caution  to  the  end  that  we  shall  not 
usurp  powers  which  do  not  constitutionally  belong  to  us.  This  court  has  adhered 
steadfastly  to  the  general  rule,  in  common  with  other  courts  of  our  country,  that  a 
statute  can  not  be  declared  unconstitutional  unless  it  clearly  so  appears.  Is  not  this 
rule  of  peculiar  force  in  its  application  to  the  question  of  whether  or  not  a  legislative 
act  authorizing  the  levy  of  a  tax  and  the  expenditure  of  public  moneys  so  raised  is  for 
a  public  purpose?  We  are  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  it  is. 

Having,  we  think,  with  a  fair  degree  of  success  ascertained  the  real  nature  of  our  in- 
quiry, and  the  degree  of  caution  we  are  to  exercise  looking  to  the  avoidance  of  the  usur- 
pation of  powers  of  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  State  government,  the  legislature, 
let  us  inquire  what  are  the  considerations  to  be  noticed  as  determinative  of  this  case. 
It  would  be  of  little  aid  here  to  review  the  decisions  of  the  courts  with  a  view  to  merely 
ascertaining  what  particular  purposes  have  been  held  to  be  public  and  what  particular 
purposes  have  been  held  not  to  be  public.  We  would  be  but  led  into  a  maze  of  con- 
flict in  the  holdings  touching  the  particular  purposes  involved  in  the  reported  deci- 
sions; and  we  may  add,  we  think,  also,  into  a  maze  of  conflicting  theories  upon  which 
such  decisions  are  rested .  In  so  far,  therefore,  as  we  shall  notice  the  decisions  and  other 
authorities,  it  will  be  to  the  end  that  we  have  brought  to  our  attention  the  broad 
general  considerations  which  have  influenced  the  courts  in  deciding  the  questions  of 
public  use  in  the  particular  cases  brought  before  them,  especially  in  recent  years. 

In  Sun  Printing  &  Publishing  Ass'n  v.  New  York  (8  App.  Div.  230,  235,  40  X.  Y. 
Supp.  607),  Justice  Barrett,  speaking  for  the  court,  in  holding  that  the  construction, 
by  the  expenditure  of  public  funds  raised  by  taxation,  of  a  city  railway,  to  be  operated 
by  others  under  a  lease  from  the  city,  did  not  constitute  the  exercising  of  the  taxing 
power  for  a  purpose  not  public,  observed: 

"No  test  is  furnished  in  the  case  cited  for  determining  the  precise  scope  of  munic- 
ipal action,  and  none  has  been  suggested  to  us  which  is  in  any  way  satisfactory. 
In  considering  this  question  it  must  be  premised  that  cities  are  not  limited  to  providing 
for  the  strict  necessities  of  their  citizens.  Under  legislative  authority  they  may  min- 
ister to  their  comfort,  health,  pleasure,  or  education.  They  are  not  limited  to  policing 
the  city,  to  paving  its  streets,  to  providing  it  with  light,  water,  sewers,  docks,  and  mar- 
kets. They  may  also  be  required  by  the  sovereign  power  to  furnish  their  citizens  with 
schools,  hospitals,  dispensaries,  parks,  libraries,  and  museums,  with  zoological, 
botanical,  and  other  gardens.  They  may  thus  even  gratify  our  ears,  with  music  of  a 
summer  afternoon  or  minister  to  our  comfort  by  providing  us  with  public  baths. 
Expenditures  in  all  these  directions  under  legislative  authority  have  never  been  ques- 
tioned. Where,  then,  shall  we  draw  the  line?  It  would  be  very  simple  to  draw  it  at 
those  purposes  for  which  precedent  in  the  past  can  be  found  and  to  exclude  all  others. 
This  test  should  be  easy  of  application  but  would  be  essentially  vicious  and  erroneous. 
Growth  and  extension  are  as  necessary  in  the  domain  of  municipal  action  as  in  the  do- 
main of  law.  New  conditions  constantly  arise  which  confront  the  legislature  with  new 
problems.  As  the  structure  of  society  grows  more  complex,  needs  spring  up  which 
never  existed  before.  These  needs  may  be  so  general  in  their  nature  as  to  affect  the 
whole  country  or  the  whole  State,  or  they  may  be  local  and  confined  to  a  single  county 
or  municipality.  In  any  case  it  is  the  duty  of  that  legislative  body  which  has  the  power 
and  jurisdiction  to  apply  the  remedy.  To  hold  that  the  legislature  of  this  State, 
acting  as  the  parens  patriae,  may  employ  for  the  relief  and  welfare  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  cities  of  the  State  only  those  methods  and  agencies  which  have  proved  adequate 
in  the  past  would  be  a  narrow  and  dangerous  interpretation  to  put  upon  the  funda- 
mental law.  No  such  interpretation  has  thus  far  been  placed  upon  the  organic  law  by 
the  courts  of  this  State.  Whenever  the  question  has  been  considered  it  has  been  uni- 
versally treated  in  the  broadest  spirit." 

The  judgment  rendered  by  the  appellate  division  of  the  Supreme  Court  on  that  case 
was  thereafter  affirmed  by  the  court  of  appeals.  (Sun  Printing  &  Publishing  Ass'n 
r.  New  York,  152  X.  Y.  257,  46  X.  E.  499,  37  L.  II.  A.  788.) 

In  Laughlin  r.  Portland  (111  Me.  486,  90  Atl.  318,  Ann.  ('as.  1916,  734,  51  L.  R.  A. 
( X.  S.  i,  1 143  i  there  was  involved  the  question  of  the  city  of  Portland  exercising  its 
taxing  power  in  bringing  about  the  establishment  and  operation  of  a  municipal  fuel 
yard  for  the  purpose  of  selling  fuel  to  its  inhabitants.  In  holding  that  such  exercise 
of  power  was  for  a  legitimate  municipal  purpose— that  is,  a  public  purpose,  it  being 
authorized  by  an  act  of  the  legislature— Justice  Cornish,  speaking  for  the  court,  made 
the  following  pertinent  general  observations: 


86  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION  PROJECT. 

"The  courts  have  never  attempted  to  lay  down  with  minute  detail  an  inexorable 
rule  distinguishing  public  from  private  purposes,  because  it  would  be  impossible  to 
do  so.  Times  change.  The  wants  and  necessities  of  the  people  change.  The  oppor- 
tunity to  satisfy  those  wants  and  necessities  by  individual  effort  may  vary,  What 
was  clearly  a  public  use  a  century  ago  may.  because  of  changed  conditions,  have 
ceased  to  be  such  to-day.  Thus  the  mill  act,  which  came  into  being  in  the  early  days 
of  our  parent  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  and  was  adopted  by  our  own  State, 
was  upheld  as  constitutional  because  of  the  necessities  of  those  primitive  times.  The 
courts  in  later  days  have  strongly  intimated  that  were  it  an  original  question  it  might 
be  difficult  to  sustain  it  in  view  "of  present  industrial  conditions.  (Murdock  v.  Stick- 
ney,  8  Cush.  113:  Salisbury  v.  Forsaith,  57  X.  H.  124:  Jordan  v.  Woodward.  40  Maine, 
317.) 

"On  the  other  hand,  what  could  not  be  deemed  a  public  use  a  century  ago  may, 
because  of  changed  economic  and  industrial  conditions,  be  such  to-day.  Laws  which 
were  entirely  adequate  to  secure  public  welfare  then  may  be  inadequate  to  accom- 
plish the  same  results  now.  " 

The  decision  of  the  State  court  in  that  case  was  thereafter  approved  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  (Jones  v.  Portland,  245  U.  S.  217,  Ann.  Cas."l918,  660>,  the 
question  of  the  purpose  being  public  being  reviewed  by  that  court  in  the  light  of  the 
due  process  of  law  guaranty  of  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 

In  Gray,  Limitation  of  Taxing  Power,  at  section  176,  it  is  said: 

"  It  is  not  possible  to  lay  down  any  hard-and-fast  rule  by  which  to  determine  which 
purposes  are  public  and  which  private.  Hardly  any  project  of  public  benefit  is 
without  some  element  of  peculiar  personal  protit'to  individuals:  hardly  any  private 
attempt  to  use  the  taxing  power  is  without  some  colorable  pretext  of  public  good. 
Each  case  must  be  judged  on  its  own  facts,  and  any  attempt  at  fixed  definition  must 
result  in  confusion  and  contradictions. 

"The  custom  of  the  Government  and  the  community  is,  perhaps,  as  definite  a 
guide  as  can  be  indicated." 

Omitting  the  first  sentence,  we  quite  agree  with  this  statement  of  the  learned 
author,  but  the  suggestion  that  "custom  "  may  be  a  true  guide,  it  seems  to  us,  leads  us 
nowhere  except  to  stagnation.  This,  it  seems  to  us,  would  be  wholly  out  of  harmony 
with  the  thought  permeating  all  of  the  later  decisions,  that  new  conditions  and  new 
public  necessities  are  weighty  considerations  in  determining  the  question  of  public 
purpose.  For  if  custom  is  to  be  the  controlling  factor  in  deciding  the  question,  then  the 
consideration  of  new  conditions  and  new  necessities  are  of  little  moment  in  deciding 
the  question.  We  are  impressed  with  the  observations  touching  custom  as  a  guide 
made  by  Chester  Collins  Maxey  in  an  article  to  be  found  in  the  January- February .  1918 
number  of  the  American  Law  Review,  at  pages  215,  219,  as  follows: 

"The  usage  rule  settles  nothing.  If  it  be  rigidly  applied,  it  precludes  all  possi- 
bility of  growth  and  progress  in  this  branch  of  the  law;  if.  on  the  contrary,  it  be  liber- 
ally construed,  it  reveals  the  courts  exercising  the  very  discretion  which  they  doubt- 
less employed  it  to  conceal.  No  one  is  surprised,  therefore,  that  in  later  ca?es  the 
courts  are  found  with  very  little  to  say  about  settled  usage  and  very  much  to  say 
about  the  necessity  of  recognizing  growth  in  matters  of  government  and  law  and  of 
the  deference  to  be  paid  to  legislative  determinations  of  public  purpose." 

We  feel  certain  that  these  considerations,  general  as  they  are.  lead  irresistibly  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  question  of  public  purpose  involved  in  this  case,  because  of 
its  inherent  nature,  because  of  the  opportunity  for  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether 
or  not  the  purpose  is  public  in  the  sense  of  it  being  a  legitimate  function  of  govern- 
ment, and  because  of  the  question  of  public  policy  necessarily  involved  in  it.  is  one 
which  we  are  not  permitted  to  render  a  different  decision  upon  than  that  rendered  by 
the  legislature.  Is  there  not  abundant  room  for  arguing  that  the  development  of  our 
unoccupied  lands  suitable  for  agriculture,  by  a  land  policy  which  would  encourage 
the  settlement  thereon  of  home-owning  farmers,  will  materially  contribute  to  the 
welfare  of  our  people  as  a  whole?  Can  it  not  be  argued  with  a  fair  show  ol  reason  that 
not  only  will  such  a  policy  ultimately  lead  to  the  enhancement  of  the  material  wealth 
of  the  State,  but  that  it  will  also  make  for  better  citizenship,  better  notions  of  necessity 
for  law  and  order,  and  a  sounder  and  saner  patriotism?  In  the  light  of  the  debatable 
character  of  these  questions,  we  are  quite  convinced  that  it  is  not  within  the  province 
of  the  judicial  branch  of  our  State  government  to  answer  them  in  the  negative.  Our 
decision  sustaining  the  workmen's  compensation  act  of  1911.  in  State  ex  rel.  Davis- 
Smith  Co.  r.  Clausen  (65  Wash.  156,  117  Pac.  1101.  37  L.  R.  A.  (X.  S.)  466,  2  X.  C.  C.  A. 
823,  3  N.  C.  A.  599)  seems  quite  in  harmony  with,  and  to  lend  support  to,  the  con- 
clusion we  here  reach. 

Some  contention  is  made,  rested  upon  the  theory  that  this  act  discriminates  in  favor 
of  agriculture  as  against  other  industries.  This,  to  our  minds,  is  no  argument  against 


COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT.  87 

its  constitutionality,  since  it  can  not  be  said  that  the  legislature  has  wrongly  decided 
that  to  so  encourage  agricultural  developent  in  our  State  will  promote  its  public  wel- 
fare. It  hardly  needs  argument  to  demonstrate  that  no  other  industry  is  so  closely 
related  to  the  welfare  of  the  people  as  a  whole. 

Some  contention  is  made  that  the  law  is  unconstitutional  in  that  it  violates  the  equal 
privileges  and  immunities  guaranty  of  our  Constitution,  because  it  contemplates,  in 
the  disposition  of  the  lands,  the  giving  of  preference  rights  to  soldiers.  All  arguments 
that  could  be  made  against  the  law  upon  this  ground  could,  with  equal  force,  be  made 
against  every  pension  law  that  was  ever  enacted  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States, 
or  any  of  the  states.  Manifestly  this  contention  is  without  merit. 

The  contention  that  the  law  violates  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  Federal 
Constitution,  we  think,  is  answered  by  what  we  have  already  said.  We  must  concede 
that  the  question  of  whether  or  not  the  tax  is  levied  for  a  public  use  is  a  Federal  as  well 
as  a  state  question.  To  take  property  by  taxation  for  other  than  a  public  purpose  is 
as  much  a  violation  of  the  due  process  of  law  guaranty  of  the  fourteenth  amendment 
to  the  Federal  Constitution  as  of  any  similar  provision  of  the  State  constitution.  This 
is  made  plain  by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  Olcott  v. 
Supervisors  (83  U.  S.  678). 

We  are  quite  convinced  that  we  are  not  privileged  to  now  decide  that  this  tax,  and 
the  expenditure  of  public  funds  raised  thereby,  is  for  other  than  a  public  purpose, 
the  legislature  having  decided  that  is  for  a  public  purpose,  which  decision  not  being 
manifestly  wrong,  the  writ  will  issue  as  prayed  for. 

Tolman,  Bridges,  Mitchell,  Main,  and  Fullerton,  JJ.,  concur. 

Mackintosh,  J.  (dissenting). — As  I  gather  the  gist  of  my  Brother  Parker's  opinion, 
it  is  that  the  court  will  not  declare  unconstitutional  an  act  which  calls  for  the  collection 
of  taxes  to  be  used  in  the  purchase  and  improvement  of  lands  to  be  sold  to  private 
individuals,  for  the  reason  that  the  legislature  has  decided  that  such  taxation  is  for  a 
public  purpose.  Courts  have  found  this  an  easy  way  to  justify  the  laying  of  taxes  to 
be  utilized  in  ways  that  appeal  to  them  as  beneficial  or  agreeable  to  their  ideas  of 
proper  commercial  or  economic  development.  The  purpose  of  the  act  may  be  highly 
commendable,  and  did  it  not  call  for  the  payment  from  the  pockets  of  the  taxpayer  of 
money  in  the  possession  of  which  he  is  supposed  to  be  protected  by  constitutional 
limitations,  as  a  land  development  plan,  it  would  merit  the  approval  of  those  in- 
terested; but  to  call  it  a  public  purpose  is  to  stretch  to  the  breaking  point  all  funda- 
mental ideas  of  what  is  meant  by  that  term. 

In  Lowell  v.  Boston  (111  Mass.  454,  15  Am.  Hep.  39),  an  act  was  declared  unconsti- 
tutional which  authorized  Boston  to  bond  itself  for  $20,000,000,  to  be  loaned  to  the 
owners  of  land,  the  buildings  upon  which  had  been  destroyed  by  fire,  for  the  purpose 
of  rebuilding  the  city.  Repayment  was  secured  by  mortgages.  The  court  said: 

"The  power  of  government,  thus  instituted  to  affect  the  individual  in  his  private 
right  of  property  whether  by  enacting  contributions  to  the  general  means  or  by 
sequestration  of  specific  property,  is  confined,  by  obvious  implication  as  well  as  by 
express  terms,  to  purposes  and  objects  alone  which  the  Government  was  established 
to  promote,  to  wit,  public  uses  and  the  public  service.  This  power,  when  exercised 
in  one  form,  is  taxation;  in  the  other,  is  designated  as  the  right  of  eminent  domain. 
The  two  diverse  in  respect  of  the  occasion  and  mode  of  exercise,  but  identical  in  their 
source,  to  wit,  the  necessities  of  organized  society;  and  in  the  end  by  which  alone  the 
exercise  of  either  can  be  justified,  to  wit,  some  public  service  or  use.  It  is  due  to 
their  identity  in  these  respects  that  the  two  powers,  otherwise  so  unlike,  are  associated 
together  in  the  same  article.  So  far  as  it  concerns  the  question  what  constitutes  public 
use  or  service  that  will  justify  the  exercises  of  these  sovereign  powers  over  private 
rights  of  property,  which  is  the  main  question  now  to  be  solved,  this  identity  renders 
it  unnecessary  to  distinguish  between  the  two  forms  of  exercise,  as  the  same  tests 
must  apply  to  and  control  in  each.  An  appropriation  of  money  raised  by  taxation,  or 
of  property  taken  by  right  of  eminent  domain,  by  way  of  gift  to  an  individual  for  his 
own  private  uses  exclusively,  would  clearly  be  an  excess  of  legislative  power." 

In  another  portion  of  the  same  opinion  it  is  said: 

"  The  power  to  levy  taxes  is  founded  on  the  right,  duty,  and  responsibility  to  main- 
tain and  administer  all  the  governmental  functions  of  the  State,  and  to  provide  for 
the  public  welfare.  To  justify  any  exercise  of  the  power  requires  that  the  expenditure 
which  it  is  intended  to  meet  shall  be  for  some  public  service,  or  some  object  which 
concerns  the  public  welfare.  The  promotion  of  the  interests  of  individuals,  either 
in  respect  of  property  or  business,  although  it  may  result  incidentally  in  the  advance- 
ment of  the  public  welfare,  is,  in  its  essential  character,  a  private  and  not  a  public 
object.  However  certain  and  great  the  resulting  good  to  the  general  public,  it  does 
not,  by  reason  of  its  comparative  importance,  cease  to  be  incidental.  The  incidental 
advantage  to  the  public,  or  to  the  State,  which  results  from  the  promotion  of  private 


88  COLUMBIA  BASIN   IRRIGATION   PROJECT. 

interests,  and  the  prosperity  of  private  enterprises  or  business,  does  not  justify  thoir 
aid  by  the  use  of  public  money  raised  by  taxation,  or  for  which  taxation  may  become 
necessary.  It  is  the  essential  character  of  the  direct  object  of  the  expenditure  which 
must  determine  its  validity  as  justifying  a  tax  and  not  the  magnitude  of  tho  interests 
to  be  affected,  nor  the  degree  to  which  the  general  advantage  of  the  community,  and 
thus  the  public  welfare,  may  be  ultimately  benefited  by  their  promotion.  The  prin- 
ciple of  this  distinction  is  fundamental.  It  underlies  all  government  that  is  based 
upon  reason  rather  than  upon  force.  It  is  expressed  in  various  forms  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Massachusetts." 

See  also  Olcott  v.  Supervisors  (83  U.  S.  678),  Citizens'  Savings  &  Loan  Association  v>. 
Topeka  (87  IT.  S.  655),  State  ex  rel.  Garrett  r.  Froehlich  (118  Wis.  129,  94  N.  \V.  f>(), 
99  Am.  St.  985,  61  L.  R.  A.  345),  Auditor  of  Lucas  County  r.  State  ex  rel.  Boyles, 
(75  Ohio  St.  114,  78  N.  E.  955,  7  L.  R.  A.  1196),  State  ex  rel.  Walton  v.  Edmondson 
(89  Ohio  St.  351,  106  N.  E.  41),  State  ex  rel.  Griffith  r.  Osawkee  Township  (14  Kans. 
418,  19  Am.  Rep.  99),  State  ex  rel.  Garth  v.  Switzler  (143  Mo.  287,  45  S.  W.  245,  65  Am. 
St.  653,  40  L.  R.  A.  280),  City  of  Geneseo  v.  Geneseo  Natural  Gas,  Coal,  Oil,  Salt  & 
Mineral  Co.  (55  Kans.  358,  40  Pac.  655),  In  re  House  (23  Colo.  87,  46  Pac.  117,  33  L.  R. 
A.  832),  City  of  Baltimore  v.  Keeley  Institute  (81  Md.  106,  31  Atl.  437,  27  L.  R.  A. 
646),  Mayor,  etc.,  of  Jersey  City  v.  New  Jersey  R.  Co.  (78  N.  J.  L.  72,  73  Atl.  609), 
Fox  t'.  Mohawk  &  H.  R.  Humane  Society  (165  N.  Y.  517,  59  N.  E.  353,  80  Am.  St. 
767,  51  L.  R.  A.  681),  State  ex  rel.  Board  of  Control  of  St.  Louis  School  and  Museum 
of  Fine  Arts  r.  St.  Louis  (216  Mo.  47,  115  S.  W.  534),  Feldman  r.  City  Council  of 
Charleston  (23  S.  C.  63,  55  Am.  Rep.  9),  Aetna  Fire  Ins.  Co.  r.  Jones  (78  S.  C.  445, 
59  S.  E.  148,  125  Am.  St.  818, 13  L.  R.  A.  (N.  S.)  1147),  Trustees  of  Brooke  Academy  r. 
George  (14  W.  Va.  420,  35  Am.  Rep.  672),  Minnesota  Sugar  Co.  v.  Iverson  (91  Minn. 
30,  97  N.  W.  454). 

It  is  needless  to  prolong  a  discussion  already  too  ambiguous.  On  principle,  and 
under  the  authorities,  I  can  not  agree  that  a  public  purpose  is  being  served  by  this 
attractive  bit  of  paternalistic  legislation,  and  therefore  dissent. 

Mount,  J.,  concurs  with  Mackintosh,  J. 

Holcomb,  C.  J.  (concurring). — The  purpose  of  the  reclamation  act,  as  set  forth 
therein,  is  the  settlement  of  undeveloped  lands.  The  settlement  and  development 
of  unimproved  lands  for  agricultural  purposes  is  certainly  a  public  benefit.  It  means 
a  direct  increase  in  production  of  foodstuffs  and  an  indirect  increase  in  industry 
within  the  State.  That  the  State  generally  will  receive  a  benefit  it  seems  to  me  there 
can  be  little  doubt. 

The  fact  that  benefits  will  inure  to  certain  classes  of  citizens  within  the  State  does 
not  lessen  the  public  benefit  that  will  result  from  the  operation  of  the  statute.  The 
benefit  received  by  a  class  of  citizens  does  not  destroy  the  primary  purpose  the  legis- 
lature had  in  enacting  the  statute  to  increase  the  agricultural  products  of  the  State 
and  make  productive  lands  heretofore  unproductive. 

Distinction  can  be  made  between  the  present  case  and  Lowell  r.  Boston  (111  Mass. 
454,  15  Am.  Rep.  39),  quoted  from  in  the  dissenting  opinion  filed  herein.  There  the 
purpose  of  the  statute  was  to  raise  funds  to  be  loaned  to  owners  of  land,  the  buildings 
upon  which  had  been  destroyed.  The  purpose  in  that  case  was  to  rebuild  a  devastated 
portion  of  a  city.  It  was  peculiarly  a  private  benefit,  although  to  a  large  number  of 
inhabitants.  It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  that  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the 
expenditure  of  money  in  that  case  could  hardly  be  conceived  as  belonging  to  the 
public  generally.  While  there  might  be  a  remote  public  benefit,  there  hardly  could 
be  such  a  direct  and  general  one  as  under  the  statute  here  in  question. 

For  the  above  reasons  I  concur  with  the  majority. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  Pir 


A    000013159    9 


